ONWUBUYA, Kene; CUNDY, Andrew; PUSCHENREITER, Markus; KUMPIENE, Jurate; BONE, Brian; GREAVES, Jon; TEASDALE, Phillip; MENCH, Michel; TLUSTOS, Pavel; MIKHALOVSKY, Sergey; WAITE, Steve; FRIESL-HANL, Wolfgang; MARSCHNER, Bernd; MULLER, Ingo

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.08.017

Métadonnées

Afficher la notice complète

Licence d’utilisation du document

ONWUBUYA, Kene
University of Brighton

CUNDY, Andrew
University of Brighton

PUSCHENREITER, Markus
Universität für Bodenkultur Wien = University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences [Vienne, Autriche] [BOKU]

Langue

Article de revue

Ce document a été publié dans

Science of the Total Environment. 2009, vol. 407, n° 24, p. 6132-6142

Elsevier

Résumé en anglais

A range of tools have been proposed to support decision making in contaminated land remediation. From a European perspective it is clear, however, that there are considerable national differences in the decision support process, and more generally in the extent to which this process supports the selection of less invasive, alternative remediation options such as phytoremediation, in situ immobilisation etc. (referred to here as “gentle” remediation technologies). In this paper we present results from the recently completed European Union ERANET SNOWMAN project SUMATECS (Sustainable Management of Trace Element Contaminated Sites), and critically review available decision support tools in terms of their fitness for purpose for the application of gentle remediation technologies. Stakeholder feedback indicates a lack of knowledge amongst stakeholders of currently available decision support tools. We propose that decision support which focuses on gentle remediation is more strongly incorporated into existing, well-established (national) decision support tools / decision-frameworks, to promote more widespread use and uptake.< Réduire

Mots clés

IMMOBILISATION

TERRAIN CONTAMINE

Mots clés en anglais

DECISION SUPPORT TOOLS

CONTAMINATED LAND

LAND REMEDIATION

GENTLE REMEDIATION

PHYTOREMEDIATION