Publications

It is generally accepted that risk assessment provides the most objective and robust basis for contaminated sites' decision-making, for example, to determine whether action is necessary and, if so, what action should be taken (Vegter et al., 2002). However, as long ago as the late 1980s, there has been concern that, while remediation may be needed, remediation processes themselves may have wider impacts that are problematic, for example, from secondary emissions or their level of use of fossil carbon (Bardos & van Veen, 1996). This led to the emergence of “environmental merit” as a decision-making criterion for remedial approach selection in the Netherlands in the early 1990s, with analogous approaches then developing elsewhere, for instance, in the United Kingdom (Environment Agency, 2000; Netherland Onderzoeksprogramma Biotechnologische In situ Sanering [NOBIS], 1995a, 1995b). During the 1990s, wider economic and social considerations began to play a role in technology selection research and discussion, along with the idea that there might be “gains” as well as adverse impacts. Much of this thinking was crystallized in 2002 by a report of the European CLARINET project on sustainable development considerations for contaminated site remediation (Bardos et al., 2002). However, at that time, sustainability remained a rare consideration in contaminated site management decision-making in practice.