Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sven Hultins gata 6, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden.
Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Kornhamnstorg 61, 111 27 Stockholm, Sweden.
Sci Total Environ. 2018 Jul 15;630:103-116. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.120. Epub 2018 Feb 21.
Decision support tools (DST) are often used in remediation projects to aid in the complex decision on how best to remediate a contaminated site. In recent years, the sustainable remediation concept has brought increased attention to the often-overlooked contradictory effects of site remediation, with a number of sustainability assessment tools now available. The aim of the present study is twofold: (1) to demonstrate how and when different assessment views affect the decision support outcome on remediation alternatives in a DST, and (2) to demonstrate the contribution of a full sustainability assessment. The SCORE tool was used in the analysis; it is based on a holistic multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach, assessing sustainability in three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic. Four assessment scenarios, compared to a full sustainability assessment, were considered to reflect different possible assessment views; considering public and private problem owner perspectives, as well as green and traditional assessment scopes. Four real case study sites in Sweden were analyzed. The results show that the decision support outcome from a full sustainability assessment most often differs to that of other assessment views, and results in remediation alternatives which balance trade-offs in most of the scenarios. In relation to the public perspective and traditional scope, which is seen to lead to the most extensive and expensive remediation alternatives, the trade-off is related to less contaminant removal in favour of reduced negative secondary effects such as emissions and waste disposal. Compared to the private perspective, associated with the lowest cost alternatives, the trade-off is higher costs, but more positive environmental and social effects. Generally, both the green and traditional assessment scopes miss out on relevant social and local environmental secondary effects which may ultimately be very important for the actual decision in a remediation project.
决策支持工具(DST)常用于修复项目中,以帮助复杂决策如何最好地修复污染场地。近年来,可持续修复概念引起了人们对场地修复经常被忽视的矛盾影响的更多关注,现在有许多可持续性评估工具可用。本研究的目的有两个:(1)展示不同的评估视角如何以及何时影响 DST 中修复替代方案的决策支持结果;(2)展示全面的可持续性评估的贡献。SCORE 工具用于分析;它基于整体多标准决策分析(MCDA)方法,从环境、社会和经济三个维度评估可持续性。考虑了四个评估方案,与全面的可持续性评估相比,反映了不同的可能评估视角;考虑了公共和私人问题所有者的观点,以及绿色和传统的评估范围。对瑞典的四个实际案例研究场地进行了分析。结果表明,全面的可持续性评估的决策支持结果通常与其他评估视角不同,并且在大多数情况下平衡了权衡取舍的修复替代方案。与公共视角和传统范围相关,被认为会导致最广泛和最昂贵的修复替代方案,权衡取舍是减少污染物去除,以减少排放和废物处理等负面二次影响。与私人视角相关,关联着最低成本的替代方案,权衡取舍是更高的成本,但更积极的环境和社会影响。通常,绿色和传统的评估范围都忽略了相关的社会和地方环境二次影响,这些影响最终可能对修复项目中的实际决策非常重要。