The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Developing principles of sustainability and stakeholder engagement for “gentle” remediation approaches: The European context
Abstract
Gentle Remediation Options (GRO) are risk management strategies or techniques for contaminated sites that result in no gross reduction in soil functionality (or a net gain) as well as risk management. Intelligently applied GROs can provide: (a) rapid risk management via pathway control, through containment and stabilisation, coupled with a longer term removal or immobilisation/isolation of the contaminant source term; and (b) a range of additional economic (e.g. biomass generation), social (e.g. leisure and recreation) and environmental (e.g. CO2 sequestration) benefits. In order for these benefits to be optimised or indeed realised, effective stakeholder engagement is required. This paper reviews current sector practice in stakeholder engagement and its importance when implementing GRO and other remediation options. From this, knowledge gaps are identified, and strategies to promote more effective stakeholder engagement during GRO application are outlined. Further work is required on integrating stakeholder engagement strategies into decision support systems and tools for GRO (to raise the profile of the benefits of effective stakeholder engagement and participation, particularly with sector professionals), and developing criteria for the identification of different stakeholder profiles/categories. Demonstrator sites can make a significant contribution to stakeholder engagement via providing evidence on the effectiveness of GRO under varying site contexts and conditions. Effective and sustained engagement strategies however will be required to ensure that site risk is effectively managed over the longer-term, and that full potential benefits of GRO (e.g. CO2 sequestration, economic returns from biomass generation and "leverage" of marginal land, amenity and educational value, ecosystem services) are realised and communicated to stakeholders.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Effective remediation sometimes requires coupling several NbS mechanisms.
“Effective remediation sometimes requires coupling several NbS mechanisms (e.g., phytoextraction and phytostabilisation) [14], phytoextraction and phytovolatilization [15] and/or applying intercropping species targeting different contaminants [16].”
From Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
The site's area and location determine the feasibility of NbS remediation systems.
“The site's area and location determine the feasibility of NbS remediation systems [14]”
From Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review (2023) · cites this paper as [14]
Citations
Cites
Witters, N., Mendelsohn, R. O., Van Slycken, S., Weyens, N., Schreurs, E., Meers, E., Tack, F., Carleer, R., & Vangronsveld, J. (2012) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2011.08.016 · Cited by 151
Self-citationVan Slycken, S., Witters, N., Meiresonne, L., Meers, E., Ruttens, A., Van Peteghem, P., Weyens, N., Tack, F. M. G., & Vangronsveld, J. (2013) · International Journal of Phytoremediation · doi:10.1080/15226514.2012.723070 · Cited by 75
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 17
- Bardos, 1996, Longer term or extensive treatment technologies, Land Contam. Reclam., 4, 19
- Bardos, 2011, Sustainable remediation, 889, 10.1007/978-90-481-9757-6_20 · DOI
- Bardos, 2011, Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land, Remediation, 11, 10.1002/rem.20297 · DOI
- Bes, 2008, Remediation of copper-contaminated topsoils from a wood treatment facility using in situ stabilisation, Environ. Pollut., 156, 1128, 10.1016/j.envpol.2008.04.006 · DOI
- Chaney, 2007, Improved understanding of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technologies, J. Environ. Qual., 36, 1429, 10.2134/jeq2006.0514 · DOI
- Dermont, 2008, Metal-contaminated soils: remediation practices and treatment technologies. Practice periodical of hazardous, Tox. Radioactive Waste Manage., 12, 188, 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2008)12:3(188) · DOI
- Friesl-Hanl, 2009, Immobilising of Cd, Pb, and Zn contaminated arable soils close to a former Pb/Zn smelter: a field study in Austria over 5 years, Environ. Geochem. Health, 31, 581, 10.1007/s10653-009-9256-3 · DOI
- Grispen, 2006, Phytoextraction with Brassica napus L.: a tool for sustainable management of heavy metal contaminated soils, Environ. Pollut., 144, 77, 10.1016/j.envpol.2006.01.007 · DOI
- Mench, 2009, Assessment of ecotoxicity of topsoils from a wood treatment site, Pedosphere, 19, 143, 10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60104-1 · DOI
- Mench, 2010, Successes and limitations of phytotechnologies at field scale: outcomes, assessment and outlook from COST Action 859, J. Soils Seds, 10, 1039, 10.1007/s11368-010-0190-x · DOI · Paper page
- Onwubuya, 2009, Developing decision support tools for the selection of “Gentle” remediation approaches, Sci. Total Environ., 407, 6132, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.017 · DOI
- Pediaditi, 2010, Monitoring and evaluation practice for brownfield regeneration to greenspace initiatives: a meta-evaluation of assessment and monitoring tools, Landscape Urban Plan., 97, 23, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.04.007 · DOI
- Reed, 2009, Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1933
- Ruttens, 2006, Phytostabilization of a metal contaminated sandy soil. I: Influence of compost and/or inorganic metal immobilizing soil amendments on phytotoxicity and plant availability of metals, Environ. Pollut., 144, 524, 10.1016/j.envpol.2006.01.038 · DOI
- Van Slycken, 2013, Safe use of metal-contaminated agricultural land by cultivation of energy maize (Zea mays), Environ. Pollut., 178, 375, 10.1016/j.envpol.2013.03.032 · DOI
- Vangronsveld, 1995, Reclamation of a bare industrial area contaminated by non-ferrous metals: in situ metal immobilisation and revegetation, Environ. Pollut., 87, 51, 10.1016/S0269-7491(99)80007-4 · DOI
- Vangronsveld, 2009, Phytoremediation of contaminated soils and groundwater: lessons from the field, Env. Sci. Poll. Res., 16, 765, 10.1007/s11356-009-0213-6 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Opinion: taking phytoremediation from proven technology to accepted practice
Gerhardt, K. E., Gerwing, P. D., & Greenberg, B. M. (2017) · Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.11.016 · Cited by 360
Cundy, A. B., Bardos, R. P., Puschenreiter, M., Mench, M., Bert, V., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Li, X. N., Weyens, N., Witters, N., et al. (2016) · Journal of Environmental Management · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.03.028 · Cited by 172
Self-citationAlshehri, K., Harbottle, M., Sapsford, D., Beames, A., & Cleall, P. (2023) · Journal of Cleaner Production · doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.137352 · Cited by 36
Alshehri, K., Gao, Z., Harbottle, M., Sapsford, D., & Cleall, P. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20632 · Cited by 32
“The site ’ s area and location determine the feasibility of NbS remediation systems [14], therefore to ensure the economic feasibility of NbS remediation systems Suer et al. recommend the site area should be > 5000 m 2 17 and ideally located in a marginal land (due to urban land competition) [22].”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Cundy, A. B., Bardos, R. P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Neu, S., Mench, M., Witters, N., & Vangronsveld, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Brighton (GB)
- BOKU University (AT)
- UMR BIOdiversity, GEnes & Communities (FR)
- Hasselt University (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Cundy, A.B.
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2013-11
- Volume
- 129
- Pages
- 283-291
- ISSN
- 0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2064655310
- Cited by
- 203
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 9.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- Document Server@UHasselt (UHasselt) (submittedVersion)
- ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
- Oskar-Bordeaux (Universite de Bordeaux) (submittedVersion)
- University of Brighton Repository (University of Brighton) (submittedVersion)
- University of Bedfordshire Repository (University of Bedfordshire) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- European Commission
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Heavy metals in environment
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Sediment Control
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Pollution › Microbial bioremediation and biosurfactants
- Keywords
- stakeholder engagement, contaminated sites, soil contamination, risk management, decision support system, stakeholder profiles, ecosystem services, CO2 sequestration, biomass production, sustainable remediation, European practice
- MeSH terms
- Biodegradation, Environmental, Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Making, European Union, Soil, Risk Assessment, Environmental Restoration and Remediation
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review