-
srergeler
ia
Prague 6220 Vienanye and Ge
Science of the Total Environment 407 (2009) 61326142
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Science of the Tot
l seLand remediationGentle
remediationImmobilisationPhytoremediation
amongst stakeholders of currently available decision support
tools. We propose that decision supportwhich focuses on gentle
remediation is more strongly incorporated into existing,
well-established (national)decision support tools /
decision-frameworks, to promote more widespread use and uptake.
2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Themanagement of contaminated soil and groundwater is a
majorcurrent environmental issue. In Europe alone, the European
Environ-ment Agency (EEA) estimates that soil contamination
requiring clean-up is present at approximately 250,000 sites in the
EEA membercountries, while potentially polluting activities are
estimated to haveoccurred at nearly 3 million sites (EEA, 2007).
Given the potentialhealth impacts of the contaminants which are, or
which may be,present at these sites, a range of national and
regional legislationhas been implemented to enforce site
remediation and the protectionof surface and groundwater resources.
This, and planned (e.g. the
treat) may not be the most sustainable option, has led to a
signicantincrease in research into the development of alternative
in situ andex situ treatment technologies for soil and water
remediation (e.g.Cundy et al., 2008). A number of these alternative
techniques utilisean in situ, low-invasive / impact approach
whereby plant (phyto-)technologies, with or without chemical
additives, are used for re-ducing contaminant transfer to local
receptors by in situ stabilizationof contaminants (using biological
or chemical processes), or plant-driven extraction of contaminants
(e.g. Cunningham et al., 1995;Vangronsveld et al., 1995; Kumar et
al., 1995; Ruttens et al., 2006;Grispen et al., 2006; Chaney et
al., 2007). Collectively, these may bereferred to as gentle
remediation options, i.e. in situ techniques thatEuropean Union
Soils Framework Directive,coupled with more stringent waste
disporecognition that traditional methods ofgroundwater treatment
(e.g. disposal to land
Corresponding author. School of Environment aBrighton, Brighton,
BN2 4GJ, UK. Tel.: +44 1273 642270
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Cundy).
0048-9697/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V.
Adoi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.017European Union ERANET SNOWMAN
project SUMATECS (Sustainable Management of Trace Element
Con-taminated Sites), and critically review available decision
support tools in terms of their tness for purposefor the
application of gentle remediation technologies. Stakeholder
feedback indicates a lack of knowledgeKeywords:Decision support
toolsContaminated landg AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH,
A-1h Ruhr-University Bochum, 44780 Bochum, Germi Saxon State Agency
for Environment, Agricultur
a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:Received 30 April 2009Received in revised form 8
August 2009Accepted 11 August 2009Available online 20 September
2009na, Austria
ology, D-01109 Dresden, Germany
a b s t r a c t
A range of tools have been proposed to support decision making
in contaminated land remediation. From aEuropean perspective it is
clear, however, that there are considerable national differences in
the decisionsupport process, and more generally in the extent to
which this process supports the selection of lessinvasive,
alternative remediation options such as phytoremediation, in situ
immobilisation etc. (referred tohere as gentle remediation
technologies). In this paper we present results from the recently
completedf Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, 16521 Suchdol,
Czech RepublicThe Environment Agency, 10 Warwick Road, Olton, B92
7HX, Solihull, UKe UMR BIOGECO INRA 1202, University of Bordeaux 1,
33405 Talence, FranceDeveloping decision support tools for
theremediation approaches
Kene Onwubuya a, Andrew Cundy a,, Markus PuschenPhillip Teasdale
a, Michel Mench e, Pavel Tlustos f, SeWolfgang Friesl-Hanl g, Bernd
Marschner h, Ingo Mla University of Brighton, Brighton, BN2 4GJ,
UKb University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences
(BOKU), A-1180, Vienna, Austrc Lulea University of Technology,
97187 Lulea, Swedend
j ourna l homepage: www.eCOM, 2006) legislation,sal regulations
and thecontaminated land andll, isolation, pump and
nd Technology, University of; fax: +44 1273 642285.
ll rights reserved.election of gentle
iter b, Jurate Kumpiene c, Brian Bone d, Jon Greaves d,y
Mikhalovsky a, Steve Waite a,i
al Environment
v ie r.com/ locate /sc i totenvdo not have a signicant negative
impact on soil function or structure(Bardos et al., 2008) (Fig.
1).
The application of gentle, in situ contaminated land
remediationtechnologies has been the subject of intensive research
and devel-opment over a number of years. Although a great deal of
progresshas been achieved at the laboratory or bench scale, and at
eld dem-onstration scale, the application of these technologies as
practicalsite solutions is still in its relative infancy. In
addition, there are
-
of
6133K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142considerable international differences in their
scale of adoption andpromotion. A range of factors may be argued to
have limited thewidespread adoption of gentle remediation
technologies, includingthose of site heterogeneity and
uncertainties in the characterisationof the bio-available or
bio-extractable contaminant fraction; thetimescales required for
remediation; and general uncertainties / lackof stakeholder
condence in (and indeed knowledge of) the feasibilityor reliability
of some of these techniques as practical site solutions(e.g.
phytoextraction, Van Nevel et al., 2007). One major issue is that
anumber of in situ remediation options are available, and thus
someform of decision support is required to allow the user to make
aninformed decision on which (if any) is the most suitable
technique(s)for the site requiring remediation or management.
A range of systems and tools have been proposed to
supportdecision making within the contaminated land arena (e.g.
CLARINET,2002). From a European perspective, it is clear, however,
that thereare considerable differences in the decision support
process betweenEuropean Union (EU) member states, and more
specically in theextent towhich this decision support process
supports, or informs, theselection of gentle remediation options.
Here, we present results fromthe recently completed European Union
ERANET SNOWMAN projectSUMATECS (Sustainable Management of Trace
Element Contami-nated Sites), a 13 partner European project
focussed on reviewingthe current status of research and application
of gentle remediationtechnologies across Europe. This paper
critically reviews available
Fig. 1. Schematic classicationdecision support tools in terms of
their tness for purpose for theapplication of gentle remediation
technologies. Stakeholder feedbackon existing decision support
tools (in terms of their general utility,and their application to
selecting gentle remediation technologies),via a questionnaire
survey and focussed discussion sessions heldduring the SUMATECS
project, is presented and evaluated, and con-clusions and
recommendations for further action / research aremade. While this
paper focuses primarily on the European Unioncontaminated land
arena, the discussion and recommendationsoutlined have clear wider
implications for contaminated land man-agement and the adoption of
gentle remediation technologies inother geographic regions.
2. Decision support tools (DSTs) for contaminated land
assess-ment and remediation
Bardos et al. (2001) dene decision support as the assistancefor,
substantiation and corroboration of, an act or result of
deciding;typically this deciding will be a determination of an
optimal or bestapproach. Over the last thirty years approaches to
decision makingin contaminated sites have progressed from largely
cost-basedapproaches in the mid-1970s, through the technology
feasibilitystudies of the mid-1980s to the risk-based assessment
approaches ofthe mid-1990s (Pollard et al., 2004). More recently,
sustainabilityconsiderations (e.g. carbon footprint, use of
recycled materialsand renewable energy resources during site
clean-up, social factorsetc.) have also been embedded more
explicitly into the decisionsupport process (e.g. Dixon et al.,
2007; USEPA, 2008; US SustainableRemediation Forum, 2009). The
various changes that have occurredover the years have aroused
interest in contaminated land not justfrom land owners, nanciers
and environmental / engineering con-sultants but also from various
stakeholders including: pressure groups,local councils, residential
associations etc. Renn (1992) therefore sug-gested the need for a
decision process that facilitates the involvementof all affected
parties and at the same time produces a prudent andinformed
judgement based on expertise and knowledge which wouldincrease
participation of all stakeholders in the decision-makingprocess. A
systematic methodology for the combination of quantita-tive and
qualitative input from scientic studies of risk, cost and costbenet
analyses, and stakeholder views however has yet to be
fullydeveloped for environmental decision making (Linkov et al.,
2006).Generally, decisions should be reached in a clear, concise
and trans-parent manner to reduce bias in contaminated land
development. Thedecision process should also be balanced and
systematic, and foundedon the principles of precision and inclusive
decision making (Bardoset al., 2002). Tools designed to support
this decision process (Decision
gentle remediation options.Support Tools or DSTs) canmainly be
represented in two forms;writtenguidance (e.g.; Defra and the
Environment Agency's CLR11, Environ-ment Agency, 2004) and/or
software-based guidance systems (ofwhich there are several). There
is arguably however a lack of trust inthe software approach to
decision support, mainly due to lack of trans-parency (CLARINET,
2002). It should be noted that DSTs serve to act asa support to
decision making, and do not act as a decision-makingtool per
se.
Historically, a range of generic decision support techniques
havebeen made available for the management of land
contamination(CLARINET, 2002). The techniques include: Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA),Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA), Cost Effectiveness
Analysis (CEA) andCostBenet Analysis (CBA). These techniques have
varied methodsof implementation, are used at various stages of the
decision-makingprocess, and have been incorporated into a range of
DSTs. For thepurpose of this review, MCA and LCA will be considered
primarily.These two tools are the most widely recognised
instruments im-plemented in collecting detailed information on
environmentaldecision support aspects and have been widely used in
industrialecology and environmental systems analysis (e.g. Hermann
et al.,2007; Pollard et al., 2008).
-
for environmental decision making. Several examples have
beenpublished on the use of LCA in site remediation: Bayer and
Finkel
or decades). LCA initiates the comparison of such diverse
techniques,taking into consideration the needs of various
stakeholders.
6134 K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 613261422.1. Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)
The remediation and development of contaminated land havebecome
a multi-stakeholder issue. This increase in interest
hasnecessitated the development of effective Multi-Criteria
Analysis(MCA). MCA is a decision-making tool used in environmental
systemsanalysis to evaluate a problem by giving an order of
preference formultiple alternatives on the basis of several
criteria that may havedifferent units (Hermann et al., 2007). Its
techniques can be used toidentify a single most preferred option,
to rank options, to short-lista limited number of options for
subsequent detailed appraisal, or sim-ply to distinguish acceptable
from non-acceptable possibilities (DTLR,2001; Zopounidis and
Doumpos, 2002). It achieves this by assessinginformation in a
consistent way, where the different factors areweighted by means of
a score. MCA involves identifying the decisionrequirement and
criteria of the various processes, scoring, weighting,establishing
an overall result, scrutinising the result and
undertakingsensitivity analysis tests. The technique relies heavily
on the judgementof the decision-making team, which includes
stakeholders and experts,and it is therefore conceivable that
results may be biased. Dedicatedconsultations and debate are
necessary in order to reduce the subjec-tivity of this form of
analysis (Janikowski et al., 2000). This subjectivemode of decision
making is believed to be the main disadvantageof MCA (Hermann et
al., 2007). The outcome of the weighting proce-dure is therefore
often determined by whom it includes as much asby the choice of
weighting methods (Hobbs and Meier, 2000).
MCA, however, has been recommended in the development ofDSTs to
provide a formal structure for the joint consideration of
envi-ronmental, technological and economic factors relevant to
evaluatingand selecting amongst management alternatives and for
organisingthe involvement of stakeholders in the decisional process
(Kiker et al.,2005 and Carlon et al., 2006). Therefore it is
favoured because of itstransparency, rigorous structure and its
intense evaluation of options.It can also be used in the
combination of monetary and non-monetaryvalues in the
decision-making process. A common and popular typeof MCA is
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)which is also knownas Multi
Attribute Decision Analysis (MADA). It is a way of looking
atcomplex problems that are characterised by any mixture of
monetaryand non-monetary objectives, of breaking the problem into
moremanageable parts to allow data and judgments to be brought to
bear onthe different parts, and then reassembling the different
parts to providea more coherent picture to the decision makers
(DTLR 2001). Forexample, MCDA is the approach used in the DESYRE
DSS (decisionsupport system for the rehabilitation of
contaminatedmegasites, Carlonet al., 2006). The implementation of
the MCDA involves, but is notlimited to, the following:
Establishing the context which includes identication of
thevarious stakeholders and key players
Indication of the various options to be appraised Identifying
the criteria that would be used to assess the variousoptions
identied above
Analysing the various options and awarding scores based on
thecriteria
Assigning weights for the criteria based on their relative
impor-tance to the decision-making process
Combining the weights and the values in order to achieve
overallsignicance
Studying the results Carrying out a sensitivity analysis test to
ensure that all necessaryareas / parameters / options have been
appropriately considered.
2.2. Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) is a tool that identies and quanties
the
emissions and resources used at all stages of a product or an
activity'sLCA is commonly used in the UK with a recent publication
byDefra (2006a) endorsing its use. It is also popular in other
partsof Europe and has been incorporated into some decision
supporttools including Dutch ABC (Assessment, Benets and Costs,
Maringet al., 2004discussed below). LCA can, however, be a
complexand resource hungry process and therefore can only nd
acceptanceif used within a competent decision support tool. The key
elementsof an LCA are:
Goal and scope denition Life Cycle Inventory Analysis Life Cycle
Impact Assessment Life Cycle Interpretation Reporting; and Critical
Review
2.3. CostBenet Analysis (CBA)
CBA is the assessment of all costs and benets that are involved
invarious available options. The terms cost and benet are not
usedsolely in the nancial context. Cost can be dened as anything
that canreduce one's well-beingwhile the denition of benet is
anything thathas the capability of increasing human well-being. The
application ofCBA may be regarded as a complex process as it
requires mainlynancial/monetary input and therefore needs a great
deal of expertisefor implementation. Difculties may arise when
considering aspectswhich may not have an immediately obvious or
easily quantiablemonetary value (e.g. an ecosystem, social
acceptability of a remedi-ation option etc).
2.4. Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)
The signicant difference between CBA and CEA is that the
benetsof a project, in the case of CEA, are not monetised. In the
context ofmanagement of contaminated land, once remediation
objectives havebeen agreed CEA provides a framework for deciding
the least costoption to deliver the required remediation standard;
it is a relativelysimple balance of the costs of a measure versus
its effectiveness, and(2006) assess the use of LCA in active and
passive groundwaterremediation technologies; Volkwein et al. (1999)
use LCA to com-plement risk assessment of the primary impacts of
contaminatedland and, with this aim in view, compare the results of
LCA beforeand after remediation; and Diamond et al. (1999) and Page
et al.(1999) both utilise LCA in generic remediation options and
casestudies. The application of LCA to land remediation offers the
oppor-tunity to make relatively objective comparisons between
severalavailable approaches. For example, some remediation
techniqueshave high energy consumption for a short period of time
(e.g. dualphase vacuum extraction) while others have low energy
consumptionbut are required for a long duration (e.g. enhanced
monitored naturalattenuation, or pump and treat, which could run
for several yearslife cycle. It has been dened as the compilation
and evaluation of theinputs, outputs, and the potential
environmental impacts of a productsystem throughout its life cycle
(ISO, 1997). In other words itemploys a cradle to grave approach as
described in the manufactur-ing sector. It became popular in
themanufacturing industry but its usehas been expanded into a range
of other areas, including themanagement of contaminated land.
According to Blanc et al. (2004),LCA is gaining widespread
acceptance in the eld of support systemswhether it meets the
remediation objectives of the site.
-
3. Critical review of existing decision support tools, and their
tnessfor purpose for the selection of gentle remediation
approacheswithin Europe
Presently, relatively few EU countries have a fully
developedmethodology/system for decision making in contaminated
landmanagement. Considerable improvement is necessary for
evaluatingsustainability issues more systematically in
decision-making proce-dures as presently a largemajority of
projects favour conventional andoften non-sustainable technical
solutions for contaminated landremediation (EURODEMO, 2005).
Arguably, signicantly more em-phasis is currently placed on the
nancial implications of thetechnique, cost saving and prot margins,
than on potential envi-ronmental impacts, socio-economic
implications and stakeholderinvolvement. The key drivers of
remediation in most Europeancountries are: (i) risk management (ii)
core stakeholders (project
6135K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142drivers), (iii) timescale and (iv) technical
suitability/feasibility. Bycomparison, stakeholder satisfaction,
cost effectiveness and sustain-ability are given signicantly less
consideration in current practices(Fig. 2, CLARINET, 2002). The
latter two factors in particular may beimportant drivers for the
selection and adoption of gentle remedia-tion options (see Section
5).
In terms of decision support guidance and tools, three
(national)examples are discussed below to illustrate current
practice inprovision of written guidance, and its tness for purpose
for theselection and promotion of gentle remediation technologies.
Subse-quently, we discuss and evaluate a range of software-based
decisionsupport tools developed under regional and other funding
pro-grammes. Again, the focus here is on the tness for purpose of
thetools described for the selection of gentle remediation
approachesamore generic recent review can be found in Marcomini et
al. (2009).
3.1. Example 1: Decision support tools in the UK
Defra and the Environment Agency have developed a
writtenguidance document / strategy entitled Model Procedures for
theManagement of Contaminated Land, also referred to as
ContaminatedLand Report 11 (CLR11, Environment Agency, 2004). This
documentencapsulates procedural guidance for the whole life cycle
of themanagement of contaminated sites. It consists of three main
stages:
Risk assessment Options appraisal to include the evaluation and
selection of reme-diation options and their suitability for the
site
Implementation of the remediation strategy, including
verication.
CLR11 is consistent with the requirements of the
statutorycontaminated land regime in the UK (Part IIA of the
EnvironmentalProtection Act 1995, and the associated guidanceDefra
Circular 01/
Fig. 2. Key factors in decision making in remediation technology
selection (after
CLARINET 2002).2006 (Defra, 2006b) and proposes a tiered
remedial approach todecision making. Tiers within the options
appraisal stage (i.e. thestage most relevant to the selection of
gentle remediation technol-ogies) are indicated below:
(1) Tier 1: Identication of feasible remediation options
According to CLR11, a feasible remediation option is one that is
likelyto meet dened, site-specic objectives relating to both
pollutantlinkages and the wider management context for the site as
a whole.In this stage the procedures offer two tools for
utilisation by decisionmakers:
Tool 1 involves a simple set of tables or decision support
matriceswhich relates (at a generic level) the applicability of
different reme-diationmethods to environmental media (soil/water),
and the natureof the pollutant. At this stage a suitable technique
is chosen that isrelevant to the identied pollutant linkage.
Tool 2 is a link to further information on remediation options
inorder to assess the technical basis of the remediation
techniques.There are several sources used for this assessment
including:
Environment Agency Remedial Treatment Data Sheets; CIRIA,
Remedial Treatment of Contaminated Land series reports(now
supplemented by CIRIA C622 Selection of remedialtreatments for
contaminated land a guide of good practice(Rudland and Jackson,
2004))
Two web-based sources in EUGRIS (the European Groundwaterand
Contaminated Land Information System, www.eugris.info)and CL:AIRE
(Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environ-ments,
www.claire.co.uk)
(2) Tier 2: Detailed evaluation of remediation options
This stage drives the decision maker to develop a series of
selectioncriteria, and CLR11 refers to four decision support tools
in this stage:
Tool 1Carries out a Multi-Criteria AnalysisTool 2Collects cost
information on the remediation optionsTool 3Combines the
information from the above in a qualitativeCost Effectiveness
AnalysisTool 4Examines how the remedial treatment methods can
becombined.
CLR11 also reects the need for the consideration of the
environ-mental impacts of remediation to satisfy management
objectives. Thisconsiders the nature and extent of potential
effects on the quality ofthe environment in a wider and generic
context. The model proceduretheoretically
considersbothaggressiveandgentle remediation techniqueswithout
bias, although notably there is little detail given on the range
ofavailable gentle remediation options, with only the generic term
land-farming being listed in the decision support tables / matrices
in tool 1 ofthe Identication of Feasible Remediation Options tier
(described above).
3.2. Example 2: Decision support systems/tools in Germany
Similar to the UK, Germany also has detailed written
guidancedocumentation used for decision making in contaminated land
man-agement (SRU 1990, updated following commencement of theFederal
Soil Conservation Act (1998) and the Federal Soil Conserva-tion and
Contaminated Site Ordinance (1999)). The procedureinvolves the
following stages:
Goal and process: reduction of contaminant exceedances by
acertain percentage. This is similar to the risk assessment stage
of
the CLR11 guidance for the UK.
-
6136 K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142 Project mobilisation; includes determination of the
variousstakeholders, technical experts and nancial obligations
Discretionary measures/activities to include site
investigations,preliminary tests etc.
Development of remediation scenarios Technical assessment of
remedial options Cost estimation CostBenet Analysis (economic,
technical and ecological issues
are considered) Specication of remediation objectives
Remediation proposal Decision for remediation (made by authorities
working under the
auspices of the German government)
There is no explicit consideration of the environmental impact
ofthe proposed remedial technique in this decision chain
(althoughecological impacts are considered under the CostBenet
Analysisstage), and the specic incorporation of gentle remediation
technol-ogies (or indeed sustainability issues) is minimal.
3.3. Example 3: Decision support systems/tools in Sweden
The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) provides
abroad national (written) guidance on remediation of
contaminatedsites, extending from inventory estimation to
implementation ofremediation projects. The guidance is given in the
form of guidelinesand manuals that are used (as decision support
tools) by localauthorities and practitioners taking responsibility
for the investiga-tion, remediation and after-care of contaminated
sites.
SEPA has released reports covering the following areas:
planning and implementation of remediation projects; inventory,
generic investigations and risk classication; environmental soil
investigations; quality assurance; use of guideline values for
contaminated soil; choice of remediation techniques (including
CostBenet Analysis); setting demands for remediation measures and
results
Additional reports on site-specic guideline values, guidance
forsampling and goals of site remediation are also under
preparation.Experience gained during implemented remediation
projects aredocumented and published in reports and fact sheets for
futurereference.
Furthermore, SEPA has been actively working with new
guidancematerial for risk assessment and choice of remediation
measures.Material for the investigation process during the
remediation of con-taminated sites will be covered by the three
reports: To chooseremediation measures, Risk assessment of
contaminated sites andGuideline values for contaminated sites, as
well as software tocalculate guideline values for contaminated
soil. During the develop-ment of the new reports, SEPA has
performed an analysis of socio-economic consequences to identify
and try to quantify the conse-quences related to the release of the
new guidance material andnew (stricter) generic guideline values
for contaminated soil.
Since many large soil remediation projects are nancially
sup-ported by SEPA, the agency has also prepared a very detailed
andcontinuously updated quality manual for work with
contaminatedsites (SEPA 2008). The aim of this document is to
provide the userwith rules for management of remediation actions
that are nancedby SEPA. The manual describes a comprehensive
quality system forthe use and management of nancial means allocated
by the SEPAfor remediation of contaminated sites. The document
covers allactivities from inventory to implementation and follow-up
ofindividual projects.
All SEPA guidelines on selecting remediation measures are
generic
and theoretically suitable for both aggressive and gentle
remediationtechniques. According to the SEPA's guidance for
planning and imple-mentation of remediation projects (SEPA 1997),
every site remedia-tion project is unique and should start with
research andexperimental work. This can be done using established
methodsas well as new technologies. Concepts of sustainability and
long-termefciency are often underlined. However, leaving
contaminantson site (as would occur in the case of in situ soil
stabilization orimmobilisation of contaminants) is not favoured.
The reason given bySEPA (and indeed often by researchers) is that
it is difcult to assessthe long-term effectiveness of such an
approach (whereby long-termchanges in soil conditions, plant cover
or speciation / bioavailabilityof the contaminants may induce
future contaminant release). Hence,a range of gentle soil
remediation techniques are often a prioridiscounted.
3.4. Software-based decision support systems/tools
A number of software-based DSTs have been developed in
Europeboth in-house and under regional or other funding
programmes.Table 1 outlines some of the tools available in the
EU.
PhytoDSS is a DST developed under the EU framework funding
andcould be described as probably the only available tool that
focusesspecically on gentle remediation technologies. Its main
technologyof focus is phytoremediation, which is further divided
into phytoex-traction and phytostabilisation. In this denition,
phytoextractioninvolves the uptake of selected contaminants by
plants, with thecontaminants being stored in the above-ground
biomass which iseventually harvested and disposed or recovered.
This process resultsin an eventual site remediation through
physical extraction, and withpollutant linkages being managed
through the process as a conse-quence of an established soil and
vegetation layer. The process ofphytostabilisation, on the other
hand, immobilises the contaminants(mainly metals and metalloids)
through re-vegetation and someinput of chemical immobilisation.
With these factors taken into consideration, a DST was
developedto assess the viability of using vegetation, via
phytoextraction andphytostabilisation, as a means of contaminant
management whileweighing cost effectiveness against environmental
impacts in com-parison with other remediation techniques. For its
implementationPhytoDSS uses the REC model (described below) as a
basis for deci-sion support.
REC (Risk reduction, environmental merits and cost) wasdeveloped
as part of the NOBIS programme (a Dutch national researchprogramme
on bioremediation, NOBIS, 1995). The primary aim of theprogramme
was to combine risk reduction, environmental merits andcost, which
had been individually studied and integrated into decisionmaking,
into contaminated land management following changes inthe Dutch
legislation. REC does not consider other factors such aslegal,
political and social factors which might impact on
remediationchoice. The Dutch ABC (Assessment, Benets and Costs)
programme(Maring et al., 2004) on the other hand could be deemed as
a modernversion of REC. It consists of three modules:
Assessment: This stage appraises the feasibility of
differentremediation options. There are about 27 remediation
options inthe database of this tool.
Benets: This module utilises LCA to assess each
remediationtechnique. This outlines the advantages and
disadvantages ofremediation in potential environmental impact
factors such as:resource, energy input, emissions, hazardous and
non-hazardouswaste production.
Costs: The range of likely costs for each technique is
highlighted.
ABC considers both gentle and aggressive remediation
techniqueswhich are outlined in its database.
A range of other decision support software tools have been
developed under various regional and national programmes.
For
-
Table 1Overview of selected decision support tools across
Europe.
Cr ia addressed
Tools Reference/information source Principle Country of origin
Target techniques Ri assessment Cost
Sustainability(environment.impacts)
Socio-economicfactors
REC (Risk Reduction,Environmental Meritand Costs) (Phyto
DSS)
http://www.eugris.info/displayProject.asp?ProjectID =
4286&Aw =PhytoDec&Cat = Project
Multi-Criteria Analysis and LifeCycle Analysis
EC funded project Gentle remediation(phytoremediation)
Ye Yes Yes No
ABC (Assessment, Benetsand Costs)
http://www.euwelcome.nl/kims/tools/index.php?ndex=110
Life Cycle Analysis EC funded project Aggressive and gentle
techniques Ye Yes Yes No
PRESTO (PRESelectionof Treatment Options)
http://www.euwelcome.nl/kims/tools/index.php?ndex=60
Assessment based on site-speciccharacteristics such as:
contaminantspresent, groundwater geochemistryand geological
conditions
Germany Aggressive and gentle techniques No No No No
CARO (Cost Analysisof Remediation Options)
http://www.euwelcome.nl/kims/tools/index.php?ndex=10
Assesses the overall cost of remediationtechniques
Germany Aggressive and gentle techniques No Yes No No
ROCO (ROugh COstEstimation Tool)
http://www.euwelcome.nl/kims/tools/index.php?ndex=90
Assesses the rough cost of specicremediation techniques such as
dig anddump/pump and treat
Germany Aggressive techniques No Yes No No
ROSA Referenced in EUGRIS website butno obvious links
http://www.eugris.info/displayresource.asp?ResourceID=4780&Cat=document
Approach based on balance between cost,environmental
compartments versus riskreduction and reduction in liabilities
The Netherlands Not indicated Ye Yes No No
DESYRE (Decision SupportSystem for rehabilitationof Contaminated
Sites
Carlon et al. (2006) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)
Italy Aggressive and gentle techniques Ye Yes Yes Yes
SPeAR (Sustainable ProjectAppraisal Routine)
http;//www.arup.com/environment/feature.cfm?pageid=1685
Multi-criteria assessment Privatedevelopment
Aggressive and gentle techniques No No Yes Yes
BOSS http://www.emis.vito.be/boss(only available in Dutch
language)
Not provided (all in Dutch language) The Netherlands Aggressive
and gentle techniques No No No No
DARTS (Decision Aid forRemediation TechnologySelection)
Vranes et al. (2000) Multi-Criteria Analysis Italy Aggressive
and gentle techniques No Yes Yes Yes
The Sinsheim Model Volkwein (2000) www.cau-online.de Life Cycle
Analysis Germany Aggressive techniques No No Yes No
6137K.O
nwubuya
etal./
Scienceof
theTotal
Environment
407(2009)
61326142iter
sk
s
s
s
s
-
6138 K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142example, ROSA and BOSS are two software-based DSTs
that origi-nated from the Netherlands. ROSA is used for the
evaluation ofremediation alternatives in line with interpretations
of the nationalsoil protection legislation. Information regarding
this software isnot widely available and therefore its preferred
remedial technique(aggressive or gentle) cannot be ascertained.
BOSS is a web-basedexpert system which is available at present only
in Dutch. It targetsboth aggressive and gentle remediation
techniques but does notundertake detailed analysis of the wider
environmental impacts ofthe remediation activity.
Tools developed in Germany include PRESTO (PRESelection
ofTreatment Options), CARO (Cost Analysis of Remediation
Options),ROCO (ROugh COst estimation tool) and the Sinsheim model.
Anappraisal of these tools shows that they deal mainly with
aggressiveremediation techniques and serve as technical efciency
toolsfocussing primarily on cost estimation. The Sinsheimmodel,
however,quanties and evaluates the environmental impacts of
remediationprocesses. It utilises a streamlined LCA, as described
in Section 2,and produces a summary of LCA results which allows the
compari-son of different remediation processes. A decision can
therefore bereached on the best possible technique that is
environment-friendly.This DST does not include other core
objectives of the remediationprocess; costs, socio-economic factors
etc. Themodel is very advancedin that it utilises the application
of a full LCA on assessment of feasibleremediation techniques and
therefore could serve as a model for anefcient DST if all other
missing aspects are included. As noted above,it is not developed
specically for use on gentle (or in situ) reme-diation options but
does have potential application to thesetechniques.
DESYRE (Decision Support System for the Requalication of
Con-taminated sites) is an advanced, Italian-developed GIS-based
decisionsupport system, formulated to address the management of
contam-inated megasites. The developers (Carlon et al., 2006) of
DESYREhave included in their conceptual design and development the
mainaspects pertaining to a remediation process: analysis of social
andeconomic benets and constraints, site characterisation, risk
assess-ment, selection of best available technologies, creation of
sets oftechnologies to be applied, analysis of individual risk and
comparisonof different remediation scenarios. These highlighted
aspects of thetool have been encompassed into six interconnected
modules whichcomprise: site characterisation, risk assessment,
socio-economic,technological analysis, residual risk analysis and
decision making.DESYRE consists of a two step methodology for the
selection of anappropriate remediation technique whereby the rst
step providesfor the selection of feasible technologies, which are
then ranked inthe second step where there is an integration of
environmental andtechnological databases, using MCDA to produce a
ranking. Thishighly sophisticated, GIS-based, integrated DST deals
with a range ofdecisions from risk assessment to selection of
remediation strategy.Environmental impacts are considered along
with socio-economiceffects, which is very uncommon in most of the
existing DSTs.The technological module holds a database of more
than 60 typesof treatment technologies described in terms of
contaminant type,commercial availability, application modalities
and different site-specic parameters (Carlon et al., 2006). This
range of remediationtechnologies includes both gentle and
aggressive techniques. DESYREdoes not, however, include LCA of its
remediation techniques andits utilisation of MCDA analysis has been
found to be subjective(Hermann et al., 2007) with a tendency to be
biased.
DARTS (Decision Aid for Remediation Technology Selection,Vranes
et al., 2000) is a further Italian-developed DST which assistswith
the selection of remediation technologies via undertaking
ananalysis based on technical, nancial, environmental and social
cri-teria, combined and weighted in a Multi-Criteria Analysis. Its
mainunderlying criteria are based on a range of factors including
cost,
applicability, minimum achievable concentration, clean-up
timerequired, reliability/maintenance and public acceptability.
This DSTtakes a simple approach to decision making and while it
bringstogether a selection of factors, it does not consider the
widerenvironmental impacts of remediation.
The above (and other selected) decision support tools
aresummarised and evaluated, in terms of the extent to which
theyaddress the key criteria of risk, cost, sustainability, and
socio-economic factors, and their suitability to gentle remediation
technol-ogies, in Table 1. Note that the privately-developed SPeAR
is alsolisted for comparison. This tool provides an example of a
sustainabil-ity-focussed audit tool. While not specically a land
remediationdecision support tool, it does have broad application in
this area,and consists of a generic evaluation tool designed to
enable theassessment, demonstration and improvement of the
sustainabilityof products, and projects.
An overview of the various DSTs across the European
Unionindicates that the only widely available DST that focuses
specicallyon gentle remediation techniques is PhytoDSS under the
platformof REC, and this DST considers only phytoremediation as a
technique.There are a range of other DSTs that are potentially
suitable to thedecision support of gentle remediation technologies,
of which DESYREin particular has wide coverage of risk, cost,
environmental and socio-economic factors. In terms of national
decision support frameworks,UK's CLR11 framework (and similar
systems used or under develop-ment in Germany, Sweden, Austria,
France and elsewhere) provides asystematic and practical tool for
decision support over the wholeassessment and remediation process,
although there is frequently arelative lack of information on
gentle remediation approaches incomparison with more aggressive
technologies, or (in the case ofSweden for example) certain gentle
remediation options may bediscounted due to a guidance framework
that favoursmore aggressive(i.e. contaminant removal)
technologies.
The uptake of the various tools that are currently available,
andtheir tness for purpose as seen by the contaminated
landcommunity, are examined in the following section.
4. Stakeholder feedbackFitness for purpose of existing DSTs
A questionnaire survey was utilised during the SUMATECS
projectto gather stakeholder feedback on the tness for purpose of
existingdecision support tools (in terms of the application of
gentle reme-diation technologies), and, more generally, to assess
reasons forhindrance in the uptake of gentle remediation options.
Questionnairesections that specically focused on decision support
tools andsystems are shown in Fig. 3. The DST-focused section of
thequestionnaire was designed to gather responses on
stakeholderawareness of available DSTs, whether current DSTs are
felt to be t-for-purpose (both in general terms and specically
regarding theapplication of gentle remediation options), and what
(additional)features could usefully be included in a practical DST.
The targetparticipants of the survey included university/research
institutions,regional authority/government, environmental
consultancies, reme-diation contractors, and other key stakeholders
(land owners,investors, and pressure groups). Responses were
received from over10 European countries with 130 participants in
total (Fig. 4). Mostrespondents were employees in public
administrations at a nationalor regional level (40%) or employed in
local authorities such as countyand city councils (25%). About 20%
were from universities andresearch institutions and 20% from
private consultancies andcompanies involved in practical site
remediation. When evaluatingand interpreting these results it
should be considered that, due tothe sampling methodology and small
sample size, they may not berepresentative of the general
perceptions and opinions of allstakeholders, administrators and
scientists who are involved withtrace element-contaminated site
management. On the one hand, the
interviewees were selected by the national SUMATECS
participants
-
6139K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142according to their personal criteria and contacts.
On the other hand, itcan be assumed that questionnaires were
preferentially returned byrespondents with some experience or at
least interest in the subject.
Fig. 3. Page from questionnaire survey related to decision
support tools
Fig. 4. Countries of origin of questionnaire survey respondents.
n=130. DE=Germany,CZ=Czech Republic, SE=Sweden, FR=France,
AT=Austria, BE=Belgium, IT=Italy,UK=United Kingdom, PT=Portugal,
and ESP=Spain.So, there will inevitably be some bias towards
experts with previousexperience in gentle remediation options.
From the DST-specic responses to the questionnaire, the
surveyindicated that more than half of the participants (58%) were
notaware of any DSTs that can be used to select appropriate
remediationor management strategies for (trace element)
contaminated land(Fig. 5a further 20% responded Don't know). The
22% of the
. TECS=Trace Element Contaminated Sites. See text for
discussion.
Fig. 5. Participants' awareness of existing decision support
tools, in response to thequestion Are you aware of any decision
support tools that can be used to selectappropriate remediation or
management strategies for TECS sites?.
-
6140 K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142participants with knowledge of existing tools gave
an indication ofthe various tools available for use. Most of the
tools listed wereconsistent with traditional (written) guidance
documents, and indi-ated a general lack of awareness amongst the
contaminated landcommunity of many of the advanced (particularly
software-based)tools developed and listed in Table 1. The tools
suggested included:ADEME guideline, Swedish EPA report, Pirtu,
DARTS, NSOIL (Dutchtool), and THERESA 3.0. The questionnaire survey
clearly indicatedthat the knowledge of DSTs (particularly advanced
software-basedDSTs) in the management of contaminated land, at
least amongstthe survey respondents, was minimal and there is
insufcienttechnical know-how regarding the utilisation of DSTs.
Over 61% ofour participants were indecisive as to whether the DSTs
availablewere t for purpose (which is unsurprising considering the
per-centage that were not aware of their existence and uses) and
30%believed that they were. On a similar note, 80% of respondents
couldnot indicate whether available DSTs were suitable for the
applicationof gentle remediation techniques. These responses
suggest that afraction of practitioners are aware of DSTs but there
is still a shortageof knowledge in the eld and therefore a proper
tool has not beenconsistently adopted and utilised to cater for
decision support needs.Several comments from a variety of
participants included sugges-tions that existing tools are too
general and not sufciently precise,and training and skill
enhancement in DSTs are required for decisionmakers. However, a
majority of respondents (72%) believe that a DSTthat targets
choosing remediation techniques would be useful par-ticularly if it
is specic for gentle remediation options. Features thatshould be
included in a practical DST were listed by survey respon-dents as
including:
It must support decision making at sites with mixed
contamina-tion and integrate both ecological and physicochemical
traits.
It should combine various contaminants and levels of
contami-nants, various types of soils, climates and plants, surface
andground water parameters, ecosystem sensitivity and various
typesof remediation techniques.
It should implement a multi-criteria approach. It should be
pragmatic and detailed. It should implement CostBenet Analysis to
assess socio-
economic factors DSTs should support the communication between
all involved
persons and should not give a xed general solution (i.e.
toolsshould encourage dialogue and informed decision making
byusers, rather than providing a prescriptive solution)
It should be simple and comprehensible for practical application
There should be a clear denition of categories for a
transparent
classication of assessing the site with a practicable manual
forpossibilities of techniques and management
Tools should include consideration of feasibility, costs
andapplication range
Tools should be practicable for smooth execution and
coherence
These suggestions mirror those raised during focused
discussionswith regulators, practitioners and other stakeholders
undertaken inthe SUMATECS project.
5. Discussion
Despite the multitude of tools that have been developed,
theresults from the questionnaire survey indicate a lack of
stakeholderknowledge of decision support tools that can be used to
supportgentle remediation (and indeed other remediation) options.
Many ofthe stakeholders surveyed are likely to be using DSTs in the
course oftheir work via national guidelines (e.g. CLR11 in the UK),
but are notaware that these guidelines form a DST system.
Generally, toolsdeveloped or applied need to be easy to use (a
tiered approach, in line
with several national guidelines, is arguably the simplest and
mostvalid approach), and should incorporate sustainability measures
(viaLife Cycle Analysis, CostBenet Analysis or similar). The
inclusionof sustainability measures (particularly ecosystem
services or thevalue of restoring or preserving soil function),
coupled with recentmoves in promoting sustainability in
contaminated landmanagement(e.g. Bardos et al., 2008, USEPA 2008,
US Sustainable RemediationForum 2009) could arguably benet the
adoption of gentle remedi-ation technologies. In addition,
forthcoming legislative changes mayinuence the current decision
support process for, and act to supportthe application of, low
intensity gentle remediation options generally,particularly the
proposed European Union Soil Framework Directiveand its emphasis on
the consideration of maintaining soil functionat sites (COM 2006).
The potential use of gentle remediation tech-nologies as part of
integrated site solutions, at large, homogeneousand/or mixed
contaminant sites should also be considered morewidely e.g. where
gentle remediation options are applied in com-bination with other
methods, using a zoned approach.
Given:
(a) the apparent lack of stakeholder knowledge on
gentleremediation-orientated DSTs,
(b) comments received from stakeholders via the
questionnairesurvey and during focussed discussions held during
theSUMATECS project, and
(c) the large number of existing (competing) DSTs which
operatesas stand alone, specic tools, many of which only
examinesome aspects of the remediation process,
it seems logical, rather than producing more software tools of
highcomplexity, that decision support for gentle remediation is
morestrongly incorporated into existing, well-established and
utilised(national) DSTs / decision-frameworks, to promote more
widespreadawareness, use and uptake. The recommended basic format
of agentle remediation-focused DST is that it should take the form
of asimple checklist or decision matrix, integrated (where
possible) intoexisting national framework guidelines / DSTs as a
tier, probably atthe options appraisal stage (or equivalent,
following the initial riskand site assessment stages). This
decision matrix or checklist shouldclearly state (based on current
knowledge and eld trials) thecapabilities of gentle remediation
options in broad terms, allowing adecision to be made on their
potential use, and then should refer theuser to a bundled
information package on gentle remediation options(an outline
structure of this tool is shown in Fig. 6). Three key pointsto note
regarding this are (a) this delivery model assumes
thatincorporation of the DST into national framework guidelines
willpromote its more widespread use; (b) that as new technologies,
andinformation on existing technologies, are developed there is
aniterative system for introducing this information into the DST
(e.g.Agostini and Vega 2009); and (c) the choice of remedial option
(e.g.aggressive vs. gentle) may actually be pre-determined by
earlierdecisions made in the project design phase, e.g. during
planning andsetting key remediation objectives. For point (a), the
SUMATECSsurvey did not evaluate the routes by which practitioners
discoverand evaluate new remediation methods, and so further
researchshould address the most effective means to inform
practitionersabout DSTs and new technologies. For point (b), there
is a clear needfor regular updating both of DSTs, and, in the model
described above,the bundled information package on gentle
remediation options. Aweb-based resource such as EUGRIS or
EURODEMO, or a dedicated,readily-updated database such as that
piloted under the SUMATECSproject
(http://w3.pierroton.inra.fr:8000/users/welcome) may pro-vide the
best option in this case. Finally, for point (c), the DST
modeloutlined above is invoked at the point of implementing
theremediation design or during options appraisal. This may limit
theextent to which it can drive the application of gentle
remediationtechnologies, if key decisions on the remediation
project scope and
process have been made at earlier project planning / design
phases.
-
managementgaps and challenges. In: Marcomini A, Suter GW, Critto
A, editors.
es: 1
f coninfo)iatil the
6141K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 61326142Longer term work undertaken during and following the
SUMATECSproject is examining the production of a gentle
remediation-focuseddecision support tier that can be operated as
part of existingnational decision support tools / frameworks
(initially for CLR11, andsubsequently for other national decision
support frameworks). Evengiven the above caveats, the structure of
this DST may help to gen-erate wider awareness of the potential of
gentle remediation options,and promote their more widespread use
and uptake.
6. Conclusions
A range of decision support tools have been produced
andhighlighted in the academic and trade literature, but, based on
datapresented here, there appears to be a lack of stakeholder
knowledgeon DSTs generally, and specically those which can be used
to supportthe selection and application of gentle remediation
technologies.Based on stakeholder feedback, existing tools are too
general, containinsufcient detail on the range of gentle
remediation options, or
Fig. 6. Recommended formof gentle remediation
focussed-DSTdiagrammatic outline. Nottick box, including
consideration of contamination level, main pollutant linkages, type
oexclusion criteria. 2 Bundled information could include the EUGRIS
website (www.eugris.remediation options. Note that there are other
possible insertion points of the gentle remedexamine the questions
Should we implement gentle remediation technologies and
Wilalternatively are too complicated, for regular or widespread use
bydecision makers in selecting and applying gentle (and indeed
other)remediation technologies. In general, decision support tools
needto be easy to use (a tiered approach, in line with several
nationalguidelines, is arguably the simplest and most valid
approach), incor-porate sustainability measures, and consider the
potential use ofgentle remediation technologies as part of
integrated site solutionsi.e. in combination with other methods,
using a zoned approach. Topromote widespread use and uptake, the
recommended basic formatof a gentle remediation-focused DST is that
it should take the form of asimple checklist or decision matrix,
integrated (where possible) intoexisting national framework
guidelines / DSTs as a tier, probably at theoptions appraisal stage
(or equivalent, following the initial risk andsite assessment
stage). This decision matrix or checklist should clearlystate
(based on current knowledge and eld trials) the capabilities
ofgentle remediation options in broad terms, allowing a decision to
bemade on their potential use, and then should refer the user to
abundled information package on gentle remediation options
tosupport further decisions on their practical implementation.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the support of the European
CommissionFP6 ERANET programme SNOWMAN for project funding.
SNOWMANDecision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of
Contaminated Sites. NewYork: Springer; 2009. p. 27580.
Bardos P, Mariotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T. Framework for
decision support used incontaminated land management in Europe and
North America. Land ContamReclam 2001;9:14963.
Bardos P, Nathanail J, Pope B. General principles of remedial
approach selection. LandContam Reclam 2002;10:13760.
Bardos P, Andersson-Skold Y, Blom S, Keuning S, Pachon C, Track
T, et al. Brownelds,bioenergy and biofeedstocks, and green
remediation. Proceedings of the 10this one amongst more than 70
ERA-Nets (European Research AreaNetworks) funded by the European
Commission's 6th FrameworkProgramme for Research and Technological
Development. Twoanonymous reviewers are thanked for their
constructive and insightfulcomments. The views expressed in this
paper are those of the authors,and do not necessarily reect the
views or policy of their employers.
References
Agostini P, Vega A. Decision Support Systems (DSSs) for
contaminated land
Decisionmatrix / checklist should be clear and straightforward
to use, e.g. a spreadsheet ortaminants, timescales for remediation,
depth of contamination, and other evaluation or, or other
databases, and / or a list of case studies showing the eld
application of gentleon decision support tier, at the site / risk
assessment and the implementation stages e.g. toproposed
remediation scheme be approved by the relevant regulatory
authority?.International UFZ-Deltares / TNO conference on
Soil:Water systems (CONSOIL),Special Sessions, Milan,
Italy978-3-00-024598-5; 2008. p. 3-10.
Bayer P, Finkel M. Life cycle assessment of active and passive
groundwater remediationtechnologies. J Contam Hydrol
2006;83:17199.
Blanc A, Pignon-Metivier H, Gourdon R, Rousseaux P. Life cycle
assessment as a toolfor controlling the development of technical
activities: application to the reme-diation of a site contaminated
by sulphur. Adv Environ Res 2004;8:61327.
Carlon C, Critto A, Ramieri E, Marcomini A. DESYRE: decision
support system for the reha-bilitation of contaminated megasites.
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2006;3: 21122.
Chaney RL, Angle JS, Broadhurst CL, Peters CA, Tappero RV,
Sparks DL. Improvedunderstanding of hyperaccumulation yields
commercial phytoextraction andphytomining technologies. J Environ
Qual 2007;36:142943.
CLARINET. Review of Decision Support tools for contaminated land
management, andtheir use in Europe. SFT, Umweltbundesamt, Federal
Environment Agency, Wien,Austria, 2002, 180 pp.
COM. Proposal for a Directive of the European parliament and of
the councilestablishing a framework for the protection of soil and
amending directive 2004/35/EC; 2006.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/soil/pdf/com_2006_0232_en.pdf.Accessed
November 2008.
Cundy AB, Hopkinson L, Whitby RLD. Use of iron-based
technologies in contaminatedland and groundwater remediation: a
review. Sci Total Environ 2008;400:4251.
Cunningham SD, Berti WR, Huang JWW. Phytoremediation of
contaminated soils.Trends Biotech 1995;13:3937.
DEFRA. An introduction to Life Cycle Assessment. Department for
Environment, Foodand Rural Affairs, Nobel House, 17 Smith Square,
London SW1P 3JR; 2006a. http://www.defra.gov.uk/. Accessed: August
2008.
DEFRA. Circular 01/2006Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part
IIa: contaminatedland. Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs, Nobel House, 17 SmithSquare, London SW1P 3JR; 2006b. 200
pp.
Diamond M, Page C, Campbell M, McKenna S, Lall R. Life-cycle
framework for assess-ment of site remediation options: method and
generic survey. Environ ToxicolChem 1999;18:788800.
-
Dixon T, Raco M, Catney P, Lerner D, editors. Sustainable
Browneld regeneration.Oxford: Blackwell Publishing; 2007. 400
pp.
DTLR. Multi criteria analysis: a manual. London, UK: Department
of Transport, LocalGovernment and the Regions; 2001. 145 pp.
Environment Agency. Model procedures for the management of land
contaminationContaminated Land Report 11. Environment Agency1 84432
295 5; 2004. 192 pp.
EURODEMO. European platform for demonstration of efcient soil
and groundwaterremediation; Protocols and guidelines for best
practice in decision making.Deliverable D4-2; 2005.
www.eurodemo.info, Accessed: July 2008.
European Environment Agency (EEA). Progress in management of
contaminated sites.Report CSI 015. Copenhagen, Denmark: European
Environment Agency; 2007.Online report.
Grispen VMJ, Nelissen HJM, Verkleij JAC. Phytoextraction with
Brassica napus L.: a toolfor sustainable management of heavy metal
contaminated soils. Environ Pollut2006;144:7783.
Hermann B, Kroeze C, Jawjit W. Assessing environmental
performance by combininglife cycle assessment, Multi-Criteria
Analysis and environmental performanceindicators. J Clean Prod
2007;15:178796.
Hobbs B,Meier P. Energydecisions and theenvironment: a guide to
the use ofmulticriteriamethods. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers; 2000. 257 pp.
ISO. ISO14040 environmental management life cycle assessment
principles andframework. International Organisation for
Standardisation; 1997. 22 pp.
Janikowski R, Kucharski R, Sas-Nowosielkda A. Multi-criterial
and multi-perspectiveanalysis of contaminated
landmanagementmethods. EnvironMonit Assess 2000;60:89-102.
Kiker G, Bridges T, Varghese A, Seager T, Linkov I. Application
of multicriteria decisionanalysis in environmental decision making.
Integr Environ Assess Manag 2005;2:95-108.
Kumar PBAN, Dushenkov V, Motto H, Raskin J. Phytoextraction: the
use of plants toremove heavy metals from soils. Environ Sci Technol
1995;29:12328.
Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T,
Ferguson E. From comparativerisk assessment to multi-criteria
decision analysis and adaptive management:recent developments and
applications. Environ Int 2006;32:107293.
Marcomini A, Suter GW, Critto A, editors. Decision support
systems for risk-basedmanagement of contaminated sites. New York:
Springer; 2009. 436 pp.
Maring L, Sinke A, van Duijne J. End reportABC Tool. Report No.
R2004/076, Pub TNO,Netherlands; 2004.
NOBIS. Netherland Onderzoeksprogramma biotechnologische In situ
Sanering Risk
Pollard SJT, Davies GJ, Coley F, LemonM. Better environmental
decisionmakingrecentprogress and future trends. Sci Tot Environ
2008;400:2031.
Renn O. Risk communication: towards a rational discourse with
the public. J HazardMater 1992;29:465519.
Rudland D, Jackson S. Selection of remedial treatment for
contaminated land: a guide togood practice (C622).
CIRIA978-0-86017-622-0; 2004. 50 pp.
Ruttens A, MenchM, Colpaert JV, Boisson J, Carleer R,
Vangronsveld J. Phytostabilizationof a metal contaminated sandy
soil. I: inuence of compost and/or inorganic metalimmobilizing soil
amendments on phytotoxicity and plant availability of
metals.Environ Pollut 2006;144:52432.
SRU. Sondergutachten Altlasten des Rates von Sachverstndigen fr
Umweltfragen.Drucksache 11/6191 des Deutschen Bundestages. Verlag
Dr. Hans Heger, Bonn (inGerman), 1990.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA. Remediation of
contaminated sites:guidance for planning and implementation of
remediation projects. Efterbehand-ling av frorenade omrden.
Vgledning fr planering och genomfrande avefterbehandlingsprojekt;
1997. in Swedish.
Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA. Remediation of
contaminated sites:quality manual for use and management of nancial
means for remediation.Efterbehandling av frorenade omrden.
Kvalitetsmanual fr anvndning ochhantering av bidrag till
efterbehandling och sanering 4th edition; 2008. in Swedish.
US Sustainable Remediation Forum. Sustainable remediation white
paperintegratingsustainable principles, practices, and metrics into
remediation projects. Remedi-ation 2009;19:5-144.
USEPA. Green remediation: incorporating sustainable
environmental practices intoremediation of contaminated sites.
United States Environmental ProtectionAgency, EPA; 2008.
542-R-08-002, April, 48 pp.
Van Nevel L, Mertens J, Oorts K, Verheyen K. Phytoextraction of
metals from soils: howfar from practice? Environ Pollut
2007;150:3440.
Vangronsveld J, Vanassche F, Clijsters H. Reclamation of a bare
industrial areacontaminated by nonferrous metalsin-situ metal
immobilization and revegeta-tion. Environ Pollut 1995;87:519.
Volkwein S. Decision support using life cycle assessment in soil
remediation planning.NATO/CCMS Pilot Study Evaluation of
Demonstrated and Emerging Technologiesfor the Treatment of
Contaminated Land and Groundwater, Special Session Decision Support
Tools. Wiesbaden; 2000. p. 929. June 2630.
Volkwein S, Hurtig H, Klopffer W. Life cycle assessment of
contaminated sitesremediation. Int J LCA 1999;4:26374.
Vranes S, Gonzalez-Valencia E, Lodolo A, Miertus S. Decision
support tools: applications
6142 K. Onwubuya et al. / Science of the Total Environment 407
(2009) 6132614203; 1995. CUR/NOBIS, Gouda, The Netherlands.
Available via: http://www.skbodem.nl/.
Page C, Diamond M, Campbell M, McKenna S. Life-cycle frame work
for assessment ofsite remediation options: case study. Environ
Toxicol Chem 1999;18:80110.
Pollard SJT, Brookes A, Earl N, Lowe J, Kearney T, Nathanail CP.
Integrating decision toolsfor the sustainable management of land
contamination. Sci Tot Environ 2004;325:1528.in remediation
technology evaluation & selection. June 2630NATO/CCMS
PilotStudy Evaluation of Demonstrated and Emerging Technologies for
the Treatmentof Contaminated Land and Groundwater, Special Session
Decision Support Tools.Wiesbaden; 2000. p. 4257. Available via:
http://www.epa.gov/tio/download/partner/2000specialreport.pdf.
Zopounidis C, Doumpos M. Multicriteria classication and sorting
methods: a literaturereview. Eur J Oper Res
2002;138:22946.Reduction, Environmental Merit and Costs.
REC-Method, Phase 1. Document 95-1-
Developing decision support tools for the selection of gentle
remediation approachesIntroductionDecision support tools (DSTs) for
contaminated land assessment and remediationMulti-Criteria Analysis
(MCA)Life Cycle Analysis (LCA)CostBenefit Analysis (CBA)Cost
Effectiveness Analysis (CEA)
Critical review of existing decision support tools, and their
fitness for purpose for the selec.....Example 1: Decision support
tools in the UKExample 2: Decision support systems/tools in
GermanyExample 3: Decision support systems/tools in
SwedenSoftware-based decision support systems/tools
Stakeholder feedbackFitness for purpose of existing
DSTsDiscussionConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences
