Proposal for an optimized method for sustainable remediation evaluation and application: implementation of a multi-criteria process

  • Adeli Beatriz BraunEmail author
  • Adan William da Silva Trentin
  • Caroline Visentin
  • Antônio Thomé
Research Article


As sustainable remediation methods do not yet have a consolidated approach, a detailed assessment of the level of satisfaction for sustainability prospects is necessary. So, this study aims to evaluate the sustainability level of sustainable remediation methods according to the visions of decision makers in this field, in order to propose an optimized method that best represents its approach. We considered eight methods applied to sustainable remediation and nine decision criteria for evaluation. The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to judge and weigh the criteria by stakeholders. These weights were used to calculate the degrees of sustainability for all the methods, to classify these within a ranking, and to optimize the one that obtained the best performance. The results indicated that when the criteria were weighted, the criterion (C7), protection of human health and the environment in general, obtained the best placement, and the degree of sustainability achieved by each method indicates that ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council) had the best performance. Finally, the proposal method resulted in an explicit approach of all the considered criteria. This article presents a new approach compared with those already applied in this context and provides more robust resources to examine to what extent the methods integrate the premises of sustainable remediation.

Graphical Abstract



Contaminated site management Sustainability Methodologies Sustainability degree MCDA AHP Optimization 



Acknowledgements go to the Research Group on Environmental Geotechnics of the University of Passo Fundo and the Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) for the provision of the scholarship, which allowed for this in-depth study, in addition to the continuity of research in this area.

Supplementary material

11356_2019_6706_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (76 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 76 kb)


  1. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2013) ASTM E2876-13: Standard Guide for Integrating Sustainable Objectives into Cleanup. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  2. An D, Xi B, Ren J, Wang Y, Jia X, He C, Li Z (2017) Sustainability assessment of groundwater remediation technologies based on multi-criteria decision making method. Resour Conserv Recycl 119:36–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson R, Norrman J, Voltar PE, Söderqvist T, Rosen L (2018) What’s the point? The contribution of a sustainability view in contaminated site remediation. Sci Total Environ 630:103–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bardos RP, Thomas HF, Smith JWN, Harries ND, Evans F, Boyle R, Howard T, Lewis R, Thomas AO, Haslam A (2018) The development and use of sustainability criteria in SuRF-UK’s Sustainable Remediation Framework. Sustainability 10(6):1781–1803. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Res. J. 9(2):27–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cappuyns V (2016) Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. J Environ Manag 184:45–56. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chen Y, Yu J, Khan S (2010) Spatial sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights in GIS-based land suitability evaluation. Environ Model Softw 25(12):1582–1591. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Diaz-Sarachaga JM, Jato-Espino D, Castro-Fresno D (2017) Application of the sustainable infrastructure rating system for developing countries (SIRSDEC) to a case study. Environ Sci Pol 69:73–80. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forum US (2009) Sustainable remediation white paper: Integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediat J 19(3):5–114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harclerode MA, Lal P, Miller ME (2015) Quantifying global impacts to society from the consumption of natural resources during environmental remediation activities. J Ind Ecol 20(3):410–422. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holland KS, Lewis RE, Tipton K, Karnis S, Dona C, Petrovski E, Bull LP, Taege D, Hook C (2011) Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects. Remediat J 21(3):7–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hossain MU, Poon CS, Dong YH, Lo IM, Cheng JC (2018) Development of social sustainability assessment method and a comparative case study on assessing recycled construction materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess 23(8):1654–1674. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A (2014) Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land remediation. Environ Sci Pol 39:25–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hou D, Li G (2018) Green and sustainable remediation movement in the new millennium and its relevance to China. In: Twenty years of research and development on soil pollution and remediation in China, 1st edn. Science Press e Springer, China, pp 39–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hou D, Al-Tabbaa A, Guthrie P, Hellings J, Gu Q (2014) Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. J Clean Prod 83:87–95. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hou D, Guthrie P, Rigby M (2016) Assessing the trend in sustainable remediation: a questionnaire survey of remediation professionals in various countries. J Environ Manag 184:18–26. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hou D, Qi S, Zhao B, Rigby M, O'Connor D (2017) Incorporating life cycle assessment with health risk assessment to select the ‘greenest’ cleanup level for Pb contaminated soil. J Clean Prod 162:1157–1168. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hou D, Ding Z, Li G, Wu L, Hu P, Guo G, Wang X, Ma Y, O’Connor D, Wang X (2018) A sustainability assessment framework for agricultural land remediation in China. Land Degrad Dev 29(4):1005–1018. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huang WY, Hung W, Vu CT, Chen WT, Lai JW, Lin C (2016) Green and sustainable remediation (GSR) evaluation: framework, standards, and tools. A case study in Taiwan. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23(21):21712–21725. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huysegoms L, Cappuyns V (2017) Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options. J Environ Manag 196:278–296. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. International Standards Organization (ISO) (2017) ISO 18504 Soil quality e guidance on sustainable remediation. (accessed 19 Sept 2019)
  22. Interstate Technology & Regulatory Council (ITRC) (2011) Green and sustainable remediation: a practical framework. GSR-2. (accessed 25 Mar 2019)
  23. Lemming G, Hauschild MZ, Bjerg PL (2009) Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15(1):115–127. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Network for Industrially Contaminated Land in Europe (NICOLE) (2010) NICOLE road map for sustainable remediation. (accessed 25 Mar 2019)
  25. Pollard SJT, Brookes A, Earl N, Lowe J, Kearney T, Nathanail CP (2004) Integrating decision tools for the sustainable management of land contamination. Sci Total Environ 325(1–3):15–28. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reddy KR, Adams JA (2015) Sustainable remediation of contaminated sites. Momentum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Ridsdale DR, Noble BF (2016) Assessing sustainable remediation frameworks using sustainability principles. J Environ Manag 184:36–44. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rizzo E, Bardos P, Pizzol L, Critto A, Giubilato E, Marcomini A, Albano C, Darmendrail D, Döberl G, Harclerode M, Harries N, Nathanail P, Pachon C, Rodriguez A, Slenders H, Smith G (2016) Comparison of international approaches to sustainable remediation. J Environ Manag 184:4–17. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  30. Salvia AL, Brandli LL, Leal Filho W, Kalil RML (2019) An analysis of the applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for selection of energy efficiency practices in public lighting in a sample of Brazilian cities. Energy Policy 132:854–864. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Scala NM, Needy KL, Rajgopal J (2010) Using the analytic hierarchy process in group decision making for nuclear spare parts, in: 31st ASEM National Conference: American Society for Engineering ManagementGoogle Scholar
  32. Slenders HL, Bakker L, Bardos P, Verburg R, Alphenaar A, Darmendrail D, Nadebaum P (2017) There are more than three reasons to consider sustainable remediation: a Dutch Perspective. Remediat J 27(2):77–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith G, Nadebaum P (2016) The evolution of sustainable remediation in Australia and New Zealand: A storyline. J Environ Manag 184:27–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Song Y, Hou D, Zhang J, O'Connor D, Li G, Gu G, Li S, Liu P (2018) Environmental and socio-economic sustainability appraisal of contaminated land remediation strategies: a case study at a mega-site in China. Sci Total Environ 610-611:391–401. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. SuRF-UK (2010) A framework for assessing the sustainability of soil and groundwater remediation: sustainable remediation forum from United Kingdom. CL:AIRE. (accessed 25 Mar 2019)
  36. SuRF-UK (2011) Annex 1: The SuRF-UK Indicator Set for Sustainable Remediation Assessment. (accessed 19 Sept 2019)
  37. Trentin AWS, Reddy KR, Kumar G, Chetri JK, Thomé A (2019) Quantitative Assessment of Life Cycle Sustainability (QUALICS): framework and its application to assess electrokinetic remediation. Chemosphere. 230:92–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2012) Methodology for understanding and reducing a project’s environmental footprint. (accessed 25 Mar 2019)
  39. Visentin C, Trentin AWS, Braun AB, Thomé A (2019) Application of life cycle assessment as a tool for evaluating the sustainability of contaminated sites remediation: a systematic and bibliographic analysis. Sci Total Environ 672:893–905. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang JJ, Jing YY, Zhang CF, Zhao JH (2009) Review on multi-criteria decision analysis aid in sustainable energy decision-making. Renew Sust Energ Rev 13(9):2263–2278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. White L, Noble BF (2013) Strategic environmental assessment for sustainability: a review of a decade of academic research. Environ Impact Assess Rev 42:60–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate Program in Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Passo FundoPasso FundoBrazil

Personalised recommendations