|
|
“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?”.Beames A, Broekx S, Lookman R, Touchant K, Seuntjens P, The science of the total environment 470, 954 (2014). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2013.10.044
Abstract: The state-of-the-science in sustainability assessment of soil and groundwater remediation is evaluated with the application of four decision support systems (DSSs) to a large-scale brownfield revitalization case study. The DSSs were used to perform sustainability appraisals of four technically feasible remediation alternatives proposed for the site. The first stage of the review compares the scope of each tool's sustainability indicators, how these indicators are measured and how the tools differ in terms of standardization and weighting procedures. The second stage of the review compares the outputs from the tools and determines the key factors that result in differing results between tools. The evaluation of indicator sets and tool structures explains why the tools generate differing results. Not all crucial impact areas, as identified by sustainable remediation forums, are thoroughly considered by the tools, particularly with regard to the social and economic aspects of sustainability. Variations in boundary conditions defined between technologies, produce distorted environmental impact results, especially when in-situ and ex-situ technologies are compared. The review draws attention to the need for end users to be aware of which aspects of sustainability are considered, how the aspects are measured and how all aspects are ultimately balanced in the evaluation of potential remediation strategies. Existing tools can be improved by considering different technologies within the same boundary conditions and by expanding indicator sets to include indicators deemed to be relevant by remediation forums. (C) 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)
DOI: 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2013.10.044
|
|
|
|
“Accounting for land-use efficiency and temporal variations between brownfield remediation alternatives in life-cycle assessment”. Beames A, Broekx S, Heijungs R, Lookman R, Boonen K, Van Geert Y, Dendoncker K, Seuntjens P, Journal of cleaner production 101, 109 (2015). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.03.073
Abstract: The latest life-cycle assessment methods account for land use, due to the production, use and disposal of products and services, in terms of ecosystem damage. The process of brownfield remediation converts otherwise idle urban space into productive space. The value to ecosystems in this context is of course limited since the brownfield site remains urban. When evaluating brownfield remediation technologies, the availability of space on-site is dependent on the duration of time required by the remediation technology to reach the remediation target. Remediation technology alternatives tend to vary largely in terms of duration. Comparative life-cycle assessments of remediation technologies, to date, present the large variations between alternatives in terms of remediation duration but do not translate this into an impact or parameter. The restored subsurface zone is often defined as a functional unit, when in fact the surface area is the resource restored by the remediation service. The economic benefits of making land resources available are particularly important considerations in the context of brownfield remediation. The research proposes an innovative impact assessment approach that allows land to be considered as a finite resource. The method is applied in a comparative life-cycle assessment of two potential remediation scenarios for an idle brownfield in the Brussels region of Belgium. The results show that there is a trade-off between greenhouse gas emissions and land availability and that both are largely dependent on the efficiency of the contaminant extraction mechanism. The results also raise the question as to whether the economic valuation of land, like precious metals and fossil fuels, provides an accurate reflection of the true value of the resource. Considering land as a resource at the midpoint level is also relevant in other urban contexts where competition exists between different land-uses, where urban sprawl is detrimental to undeveloped areas and where urban intensification is a policy objective. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)
DOI: 10.1016/J.JCLEPRO.2015.03.073
|
|
|
|
“Valuing urban ecosystem services in sustainable brownfield redevelopment”. De Valck J, Beames A, Liekens I, Bettens M, Seuntjens P, Broekx S, Ecosystem services 35, 139 (2019). http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.12.006
Abstract: Urban environments provide opportunities for greater resource efficiency and the fostering of urban ecosystems. Brownfield areas are a typical example of underused land resources. Brownfield redevelopment projects that include green infrastructure allow for further ecosystems to be accommodated in urban environments. Green infrastructure also deliver important urban ecosystem services (UES) to local residents, which can greatly contribute to improving quality of life in cities. In this case study, we quantify and assess the economic value of five UES for a brownfield redevelopment project in Antwerp, Belgium. The assessment is carried out using the “Nature Value Explorer” modelling tool. The case includes three types of green infrastructure (green corridor, infiltration gullies and green roofs) primarily intended to connect nature reserves on the urban periphery and to avoid surface runoff. The green infrastructure also provides air filtration, climate regulation, carbon sequestration and recreation ecosystem services. The value of recreation far exceeds other values, including the value of avoided runoff. The case study raises crucial questions as to whether existing UES valuation approaches adequately account for the range of UES provided and whether such approaches can be improved to achieve more accurate and reliable value estimates in future analyses.
Keywords: A1 Journal article; Sustainable Energy, Air and Water Technology (DuEL)
DOI: 10.1016/J.ECOSER.2018.12.006
|
|
