title: 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.
authors.affiliation: KU Leuven, Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: lies.huysegoms@kuleuven.be.
authors.forename: Lies
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Huysegoms
authors.affiliation: KU Leuven, Centre for Economics and Corporate Sustainability (CEDON), Warmoesberg 26, 1000, Brussels, Belgium. Electronic address: valerie.cappuyns@kuleuven.be.
authors.forename: Valérie
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Cappuyns
mesh_terms: D003247:Conservation of Natural Resources; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D004787:Environmental Pollution; D052918:Environmental Restoration and Remediation; D005060:Europe; D006801:Humans; D012987:Soil
chemical_list: D012987:Soil
keywords: Decision support tools; Indicators; Site remediation; Sustainability assessment