Rizzo Erika, Bardos Paul, Pizzol Lisa, Critto Andrea, Giubilato Elisa, Marcomini Antonio, Albano Claudio, Darmendrail Dominique, Döberl Gernot, Harclerode Melissa, Harries Nicola, Nathanail Paul, Pachon Carlos, Rodriguez Alfonso, Slenders Hans, Smith Garry
University Ca' Foscari of Venice, Dept. of Environmental Sciences Informatics and Statistics, Via delle Industrie 21/8, c/o INCA - VEGAPARK, 30175 Marghera-Venice, Italy.
University of Brighton, Brighton, UK; r3 Environmental Technology Ltd., Reading, UK.
J Environ Manage. 2016 Dec 15;184(Pt 1):4-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.07.062. Epub 2016 Aug 9.
Since mid-to-late 2000s growing interest for sustainable remediation has emerged in initiatives from several international and national organisations as well as other initiatives from networks and forums. This reflects a realisation that risk-management activities can about bring environmental, social, and economic impacts (positive or negative) in addition to achieving risk-based remediation goals. These ideas have begun to develop as a new discipline of "sustainable remediation". The various initiatives have now published a number of frameworks, standards, white papers, road maps and operative guidelines. The similarities and differences in the approaches by these outputs and general trends have been identified. The comparison is based on a set of criteria developed in discussion with members of these various initiatives, and identifies a range of similarities between their publications. Overall the comparison demonstrates a high level of consensus across definitions and principles, which leads to the conclusion that there is a shared understanding of what sustainable remediation is both across countries and stakeholder groups. Publications do differ in points of detail, in particular about the operational aspects of sustainable remediation assessment. These differences likely result from differences in context and legal framework. As this analysis was carried out its findings were debated with members of the various international initiatives, many of whom have been included as authors. Hence the outcomes described in this paper can be seen as the result of a sort of multi-level debate among international experts (authors) and so can offer a starting point to new sustainable remediation initiatives (for example in other countries) that aim to start developing their own documents.
自21世纪中后期以来,一些国际和国家组织发起的倡议以及网络和论坛的其他倡议对可持续修复的兴趣与日俱增。这反映出人们已经认识到,风险管理活动除了实现基于风险的修复目标外,还可能带来环境、社会和经济影响(正面或负面)。这些理念已开始发展成为一门新的“可持续修复”学科。目前,各项倡议已发布了一些框架、标准、白皮书、路线图和操作指南。已确定了这些成果在方法上的异同以及总体趋势。这种比较基于与这些不同倡议的成员讨论后制定的一套标准,并确定了它们出版物之间的一系列相似之处。总体而言,比较结果表明在定义和原则方面达成了高度共识,由此得出结论,各国和利益相关者群体对可持续修复的内涵有着共同的理解。出版物在细节方面存在差异,特别是在可持续修复评估的操作方面。这些差异可能源于背景和法律框架的不同。在进行这项分析时,其结果与各国际倡议的成员进行了讨论,其中许多人已被列为作者。因此,本文所述结果可视为国际专家(作者)之间多层次辩论的结果,从而可为旨在开始制定自身文件的新的可持续修复倡议(例如在其他国家)提供一个起点。