The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options
Abstract
In Europe alone, there are more than 2,5 million potentially contaminated sites of which 14% are expected to require remediation. Contaminated soil and groundwater can cause damage to human health as well as to valuable ecosystems. Globally more attention has been paid to this problem of soil contamination in the past decades. For example, more than 58 000 sites have been remediated in Europe between 2006 and 2011. Together with this increase in remediation projects there has been a surge in the development of new remediation technologies and decision support tools to be able to match every site and its specific characteristics to the best possible remediation alternative. In the past years the development of decision support tools (DST) has evolved in a more sustainable direction. Several DSTs added the claim not only to denote effective or technologically and economically feasible remediation alternatives but also to point out the more or most sustainable remediation alternatives. These trends in the evaluation of site remediation options left users with a confusing clew of possibly applicable tools to assist them in decision making for contaminated site remediation. This review provides a structured overview on the extent decision support tools for contaminated site remediation, that claim to assist in choosing the most sustainable remediation alternative, actually include the different elements of sustainability proposed in our assessment framework. The review contains an in-depth analysis of thirteen tools specifically developed to assess the sustainability of site remediation alternatives. This analysis is based on six criteria derived from the definition of sustainable development of the Brundtland report. The six criteria were concretized by using the three pillars of sustainability, applied to site remediation according to the SuRF-UK framework, two criteria derived from Life Cycle Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, and an 'User friendly' criterion. These elements come together in a framework, drafted for this study, containing six criteria covering the environmental, economic, social, time, uncertainty aspects and user friendliness of a sustainable site remediation. The main remarks uncovered by this review are the imbalance of used indicators still expressing a strong preference for the environmental aspect at the expense of the economic and social aspects of sustainability, the lack of consistency in the terminology used within the field and the failure in adapting released tools to recent legislation or scientific advancements.
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?
In the citing paper
“Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) are two widely used methods for evaluating the environmental and economic performance of conventional remediation systems [9] as well as NbS systems [10].”
From Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
In the citing paper
“LCA and CBA have been commonly used in remediation planning and decision-making [9], therefore LCA and CBA were selected as the methodologies of focus in this review.”
From Life cycle assessment and cost-benefit analysis of nature-based solutions for contaminated land remediation: A mini-review (2023) · cites this paper as [9]
Citations
Cites
Lemming, G., Hauschild, M. Z., Chambon, J., Binning, P. J., Bulle, C., Margni, M., & Bjerg, P. L. (2010) · Environmental Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/es102007s · Cited by 122
Vigil, M., Marey-Pérez, M. F., Martinez Huerta, G., & Álvarez Cabal, V. (2015) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.10.047 · Cited by 92
Biofuel or excavation? - Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options
Suer, P., & Andersson-Sköld, Y. (2011) · Biomass and Bioenergy · doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.11.022 · Cited by 87
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Bardos, 2011, Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF UK framework, Remediat. J., 21, 77, 10.1002/rem.20283 · DOI
- Beames, 2014, Sustainability appraisal tools for soil and groundwater remediation: how is the choice of remediation alternative influenced by different sets of sustainability indicators and tool structures?, Sci. Total Environ., 470–471, 954, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.044 · DOI
- Busset, 2012, Life cycle assessment of polychlorinated biphenyl contaminated soil remediation processes, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 17, 325, 10.1007/s11367-011-0366-7 · DOI
- Cappuyns, 2013, LCA based evaluation of site remediation, Chem. Today, 31, 18
- Cappuyns, 2016, Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options, J. Environ. Manag.
- Cappuyns, 2012, Evaluation of the environmental impact of Brownfield remediation options: comparison of two life cycle assessment-based evaluation tools, Environ. Technol., 1
- Critto, 2006, Decision support-oriented selection of remediation technologies to rehabilitate contaminated sites, Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag., 2, 273, 10.1002/ieam.5630020307 · DOI
- Döberl, 2013, Introducing a goal-oriented sustainability assessment method to support decision making in contaminated site management, Environ. Sci. Policy, 25, 207, 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.10.013 · DOI
- Efroymson, 2004, A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites, Environ. Manag., 34, 315, 10.1007/s00267-004-0089-7 · DOI
- Gallagher, 2013, Hybrid life cycle assessment comparison of colloidal silica and cement grouted soil barrier remediation technologies, J. Hazard. Mater., 250–251, 421, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2013.01.065 · DOI
- Harbottle, 2007, A comparison of the technical sustainability of in situ stabilisation/solidification with disposal to landfill, J. Hazard. Mater., 141, 430, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2006.05.084 · DOI
- Higgins, 2009, Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation, Environ. Sci. Technol., 43, 9432, 10.1021/es9015537 · DOI
- Hou, 2014, Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land remediation, Environ. Sci. Policy, 39, 25, 10.1016/j.envsci.2014.02.003 · DOI
- Hou, 2014, Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park, J. Clean. Prod., 83, 87, 10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.07.062 · DOI
- Inoue, 2004, Application of the rescue number to the evaluation of remediation technologies for contaminated ground, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manag., 6, 48, 10.1007/s10163-003-0107-5 · DOI
- Khelifi, 2004, Decision support tools for evaluation and selection of technologies for soil remediation and disposal of halogenated waste, Organohalogen Compd., 66, 1226
- Lai, 2007, Performance monitoring of remediation technologies for soil and groundwater contamination: review, Pract. Period. Hazard. Toxic. Radioact. Waste Manag., 11, 132, 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2007)11:3(132) · DOI
- Lemming, 2010, Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 15, 115, 10.1007/s11367-009-0129-x · DOI
- Lesage, 2007, Environmental assessment of Brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models - Part 2: case study, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 12, 497
- Morais, 2010, A perspective on LCA application in site remediation services: critical review of challenges, J. Hazard. Mater., 175, 12, 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.10.041 · DOI
- Panagos, 2013, Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a european Network, J. Environ. Public Health, 2013, 1, 10.1155/2013/158764 · DOI
- Rosén, 2015, SCORE: a novel multi-criteria decision analysis approach to assessing the sustainability of contaminated land remediation, Sci. Total Environ., 511, 621, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.058 · DOI
- Saling, 2005, Assessing the environmental-hazard potential for life cycle assessment, eco-efficiency and SEEbalance, Int. J. Life Cycle Assess., 10, 364, 10.1065/lca2005.08.220 · DOI
- Schädler, 2011, Designing sustainable and economically attractive brownfield revitalization options using an integrated assessment model, J. Environ. Manag., 92, 827
- Schädler, 2013, Spatially explicit computation of sustainability indicator values for the automated assessment of land-use options, Landsc. Urban Plan., 111, 34, 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.12.002 · DOI
- Schmidt, 2004, SEEbalance: managing sustainability of products and processes with the socio-eco-efficiency analysis by BASF, Greener Manag. Int., 45, 79
- Söderqvist, 2015, Cost-benefit analysis as a part of sustainability assessment of remediation alternatives for contaminated land, J. Environ. Manag., 157, 267
- Sorvari, 2010, A decision support tool to prioritize risk management options for contaminated sites, Sci. Total Environ., 408, 1786, 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.12.026 · DOI
- Suèr, 2004, LCA for site remediation: a literature review, Soil Sediment. Contam., 13, 415, 10.1080/10588330490471304 · DOI
- U.S. Sustainable Remediation Forum, 2009, Sustainable remediation white paper-Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects, Remediat. J., 19, 5, 10.1002/rem.20210 · DOI
- van Drunen, 2005, Multi-objective decision-making for soil remediation problems. L, Contam. Reclam., 13
- Wedding, 2007, Measuring site-level success in brownfield redevelopments: a focus on sustainability and green building, J. Environ. Manag., 85, 483
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., O’Connor, D., Hu, Q., Zhu, Y.-G., Wang, L., Kirkwood, N., Ok, Y. S., Tsang, D. C. W., Bolan, N. S., et al. (2023) · Nature Reviews Earth & Environment · doi:10.1038/s43017-023-00404-1 · Cited by 338
Visentin, C., da Silva Trentin, A. W., Braun, A. B., & Thomé, A. (2019) · Science of The Total Environment · doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.04.034 · Cited by 101
da S Trentin, A. W., Reddy, K. R., Kumar, G., Chetri, J. K., & Thomé, A. (2019) · Chemosphere · doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2019.04.200 · Cited by 66
Alshehri, K., Gao, Z., Harbottle, M., Sapsford, D., & Cleall, P. (2023) · Heliyon · doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e20632 · Cited by 32
“LCA and CBA have been commonly used in remediation planning and decision-making [9], therefore LCA and CBA were selected as the methodologies of focus in this review.”
Method
Metadata
- Authors
- Huysegoms, L., & Cappuyns, V.
- Affiliations
- KU Leuven (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Huysegoms, Lies
- Venue
- Journal of Environmental Management
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 196
- Pages
- 278-296
- ISSN
- 0301-4797 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2592456516
- Cited by
- 109
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3
- FWCI
- 0.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Environmental Management (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Lirias (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Research Foundation Flanders (ZKD0640 - SB/151424)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Environmental and Analytical Chemistry Studies
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law › Environmental and Sediment Control
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Environmental remediation with nanomaterials
- Keywords
- decision support system, contaminated site remediation, sustainability assessment, sustainable remediation, soil contamination, groundwater contamination, sustainability criteria, life cycle assessment, cost-benefit analysis, economic, social and environmental sustainability, remediation alternatives, sustainability indicators
- MeSH terms
- Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Support Techniques, Environmental Pollution, Europe, Humans, Soil, 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
