Cited by 203Heavy metals in environmentEnvironmental and Sediment ControlMicrobial bioremediation and biosurfactants

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

Cundy, A.B., Bardos, R.P., Church, A., Puschenreiter, M., Friesl-Hanl, W., Müller, I., Neu, S., Mench, M., Witters, N., Vangronsveld, J.·2013·Journal of Environmental Management

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.07.032

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Bardos, 1996, Longer term or extensive treatment technologies, Land Contam. Reclam., 4, 19
  2. Bardos, 2011, Sustainable remediation, 889, 10.1007/978-90-481-9757-6_20 · DOI
  3. Bardos, 2011, Crop-based systems for sustainable risk-based land management for economically marginal damaged land, Remediation, 11, 10.1002/rem.20297 · DOI
  4. 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
  5. Chaney, 2007, Improved understanding of hyperaccumulation yields commercial phytoextraction and phytomining technologies, J. Environ. Qual., 36, 1429, 10.2134/jeq2006.0514 · DOI
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. Mench, 2009, Assessment of ecotoxicity of topsoils from a wood treatment site, Pedosphere, 19, 143, 10.1016/S1002-0160(09)60104-1 · DOI
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. Reed, 2009, Who's in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management, J. Environ. Manage., 90, 1933
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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

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