Multi-criteria assessment tool for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives for a contaminated site
Multi-criteria assessment tool for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives for a contaminated site
复制标题
用于污染场地修复替代方案可持续性评估的多标准评估工具
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2018
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
P. L. Bjerg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gitte Lemming Søndergaard;P. Binning;M. Bondgaard;P. L. Bjerg
为了提高和支持污染场地补救技术选择的决策水平，提出了一种多准则评价方法。MCA框架的结构是在一个决策过程中积极参与利益相关者，并通过整合环境，社会和经济标准在assessment.Materials和methodsThe MCA包括五个主要的决策标准：补救效果，补救成本，补救时间，环境影响和社会影响的补救替代品的可持续性进行比较。主要标准分为若干次级标准。环境影响考虑到补救活动对环境造成的次级影响，并通过生命周期评估进行评估。社会影响主要考虑当地影响，并以1至5级的更定性方式进行评估。每个主要标准的性能被归一化为0和1之间的分数，1是最差分数。总得分是通过计算由利益相关者确定的标准权重的加权和来获得的。MCA方法被应用到评估的Groyne 42网站，在丹麦的最大的污染站点之一的补救替代方案。结果和discussionThe比较补救替代方案的网站是：（1）挖掘的网站，然后进行土壤处理;（2）在原位碱水解;（3）在原位热修复;和（4）继续封装的网站板桩。标准权重由利益相关者小组得出。利益攸关方对方法的补救效果和社会影响给予了最高权重。对于Groyne 42案例研究，挖掘方案在MCA中获得了最低的总得分，因此被认为是最可持续的方案。这是特别是由于这样一个事实，即这种选择获得了高分的主要类别的效果和社会影响，这是加权最高的利益相关者。ConclusionsThe发达的MCA方法的结构与五个主要标准。除了可持续性的三大支柱（环境、社会和经济）之外，还包括效果和时间。因此，补救的补救效果与主要标准环境分开评估和加权。这种结构使标准分数的解释更加透明，并强调了效果和时间作为决策参数的重要性。这也为案例研究中的利益攸关方提供了一个更简单的加权程序，他们表示希望在衡量补救效果时不考虑次级环境影响。
PurposeIn order to improve and support decision-making for the selection of remedial techniques for contaminated sites, a multi-criteria assessment (MCA) method has been developed. The MCA framework is structured in a decision process actively involving stakeholders, and compares the sustainability of remediation alternatives by integrating environmental, societal, and economic criteria in the assessment.Materials and methodsThe MCA includes five main decision criteria: remedial effect, remediation cost, remediation time, environmental impacts, and societal impacts. The main criteria are divided into a number of sub-criteria. The environmental impacts consider secondary impacts to the environment caused by remedial activities and are assessed by life-cycle assessment (LCA). The societal impacts mainly consider local impacts and are assessed in a more qualitative manner on a scale from 1 to 5. The performance on each main criterion is normalized to a score between 0 and 1, with 1 being the worst score. An overall score is obtained by calculating a weighted sum with criteria weights determined by stakeholders. The MCA method was applied to assess remediation alternatives for the Groyne 42 site, one of the largest contaminated sites in Denmark.Results and discussionThe compared remediation alternatives for the site were: (1) excavation of the site followed by soil treatment; (2) in situ alkaline hydrolysis; (3) in situ thermal remediation; and (4) continued encapsulation of the site by sheet piling. Criteria weights were derived by a stakeholder panel. The stakeholders gave the highest weighting to the remedial effect of the methods and to the societal impacts. For the Groyne 42 case study, the excavation option obtained the lowest overall score in the MCA, and was therefore found to be the most sustainable option. This was especially due to the fact that this option obtained a high score in the main categories Effect and Social impacts, which were weighted highest by the stakeholders.ConclusionsThe developed MCA method is structured with five main criteria. Effect and time are included in addition to the three pillars of sustainability (environment, society, and economy). The remedial effect of remediation is therefore assessed and weighted separately from the main criteria environment. This structure makes interpretation of criteria scores more transparent and emphasizes the importance of effect and time as decision parameters. This also facilitated an easier weighting procedure for the stakeholders in the case study, who expressed a wish to weigh the remedial effect independently from the secondary environmental impacts.