The Development and Use of Sustainability Criteria in SuRF-UK’s Sustainable Remediation Framework

R. Paul Bardos, Hayley F. Thomas, Jonathan W. N. Smith, Nicola D. Harries, Frank Evans, Richard Boyle, Trevor Howard, Richard Lewis, Alan O. Thomas and Angela Haslam
Additional contact information
R. Paul Bardos: R3 Environmental Technology Ltd., Reading RG6 6AT, UK
Hayley F. Thomas: Shell Global Solutions International B.V., 2288GS Rijswijk, The Netherlands
Jonathan W. N. Smith: Shell Global Solutions (UK) Ltd., London SE1 7NA, UK
Nicola D. Harries: CL:AIRE, London WC1B 3QJ, UK
Frank Evans: National Grid Property, Warwick CV34 6DA, UK
Richard Boyle: Homes England, 2 Rivergate Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6EH, UK
Trevor Howard: Environment Agency, Bristol BS1 5AH, UK
Richard Lewis: WSP Remediation, London WC2A 1AF, UK
Alan O. Thomas: Environmental Resources Management, Oxford OX2 0QS, UK
Angela Haslam: Environment Agency, Bristol BS1 5AH, UK

Sustainability, 2018, vol. 10, issue 6, 1-22

Abstract: Sustainability considerations have become widely recognised in contaminated land management and are now accepted as an important component of remediation planning and implementation around the world. The Sustainable Remediation Forum for the UK (SuRF-UK) published guidance on sustainability criteria for consideration in drawing up (or framing) assessments, organised across 15 “headline” categories, five for the environment element of sustainability, five for the social, and five for the economic. This paper describes how the SuRF-UK indicator guidance was developed, and the rationale behind its structure and approach. It describes its use in remediation option appraisal in the UK, and reviews the international papers that have applied or reviewed it. It then reviews the lessons learned from its initial use and the opinions and findings of international commentators, and concludes with recommendations on how the indicator categories might be further refined in the future. The key findings of this review are that the SuRF-UK framework and indicator guidance is well adopted into practice in the UK. It is widely recognised as the most appropriate mechanism to support sustainability-based decision making in contaminated land decision making. It has influenced the development of other national and international guidance and standards on sustainable remediation. However, there is room for some fine tuning of approach based on the lessons learned during its application.

Keywords: contaminated land; sustainable remediation; sustainability assessment; risk management; brownfields; indicators (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1781/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/6/1781/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:6:p:1781-:d:149558

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().