Encyclopedia of Sustainability Science and Technology

2012 Edition
| Editors: Robert A. Meyers

Groundwater Remediation, Environmental and Economic Assessment

  • Paul Hardisty
  • Ece Ozdemiroglu
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0851-3_65

Definition of the Subject and Its Importance

As the world’s population grows, industrial activities continue to degrade land and water at a faster pace. Under the “polluter pays” principle , increasingly adopted as the fundamental ethical precept for remediation policy, the responsibility for planning, funding, and executing remediation lies with the polluter. And ever present and increasingly vocal and powerful, are the public, the neighbors, the inhabitants of the planet, demanding that their interests be served also, and that the planet’s dwindling resources be protected for their future, and the future of their children.

But remediating polluted aquifers can be expensive, technically difficult, and time-consuming [1, 2]. Deciding if and when to remediate, and to what degree, can be regarded in the context of alternative environmentally and socially beneficial actions. What else could be done with the money required to restore a site or aquifer ? Which of the many choices...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Bibliography

Primary Literature

  1. 1.
    Hardisty PE, Bracken RA, Knight M (1998) The economics of contaminated site remediation: decision making and technology selection. Geol Soc Eng Geol Sp Pub 14:63–71Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hardisty PE, Wheater HS, Johnston PM, Bracken RA (1998) Behaviour of light immiscible liquid contaminants in fractured aquifers. Geotechnique 48(6):747–760CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Goist TO, Richardson TC (2003) Optimizing cost reductions while achieving long term remediation effectiveness at active and closed wood preserving facilities. In: Proceedings, NGWA conference on remediation: site closure and the total cost of cleanup, New Orleans, Nov 2003Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Perakami MP, Donovan PB (2003) A remedial-goal driven, media-specific method for conducting a cost benefit analysis of multiple remedial approaches. In: Proceedings, NGWA conference on remediation: site closure and the total cost of cleanup, New OrleansGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hardisty PE, Kramer E, Ozdemiroglu E, Brown A (1999) Economic analysis of remedial objective alternatives for an MtBE contaminated aquifer. In: Proceedings of hydrocarbons and organic chemicals in groundwater conference, NGWA, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pearce DW, Warford JJ (1993) World without end. Edward Elgar, LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hardisty PE, Ozdemiroglu E (2005) The economics of groundwater remediation and protection. CRC Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hardisty PE (2010) Environmental and economic sustainability. CRC Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hardisty PE, Arch S, Ozdemiroglu E (2008) Sustainable remediation: including the external costs of remediation. Land Contam Reclam 16:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Maddison D, Pearce DW, Johansson O, Calthorp E, Litman T, Verhoef E (1996) The true costs of road transport. Earthscan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hardisty PE, Ozdemiroglu E (1999) Costs and benefits associated with remediation of contaminated groundwater: a review of the issues. UK Environment Agency Technical Report P278Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    DEFRA (2003) A study to estimate the disamenity costs of landfill in Great Britain. Final report by Cambridge Econometrics with EFTEC and WRcGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gawande K, Jenkins-Smith H (2001) Nuclear waste transport and residential property values: estimating effects of perceived risks. J Environ Econ Manage 42:207–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Payne B, Olshansky S, Segel T (1987) The effects on property values of proximity to a site contaminated with radioactive waste. Nat Resour J 27:579–590Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hirshfeld S, Veslind PA, Pas EI (1992) Assessing the true cost of landfills. Water Manage Res 10:471–484Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mackay DM, Cherry JA (1989) Groundwater contamination: pump-and-treat remediation. Environ Sci Technol 23:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen RM, Mercer JW (1993) In: Smoley CK (ed) DNAPL site investigation. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    CL:AIRE (2002) Introduction to an integrated approach to the investigation of fractured rock aquifers contaminated with non-aqueous phase liquids. Technical Bulletin TB1Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guswa JH, Benjamin AE, Bridge JR, Schewing LE, Tallon CD, Wills JH, Yates CC, LaPoint EK (2001) Use of FLUTe systems for characterisation of groundwater contamination in fractured bedrock. In: Kueper BH, Novakowski KS, Reynolds DA (eds) Conference proceedings of fractured rock 2001, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lane JW Jr, Buursink ML, Haeni FP, Versteeg RJ (2000) Evaluation of ground penetrating radar to detect free-phase hydrocarbon in fractured rocks – results of numerical modelling and physical experiments. Ground Water 38:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schmelling SG, Ross RR (1989) Contaminant transport in fractured media: models for decision makers. EPA Superfund Issue Paper EPA/540/4-89/004Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Taylor TP, Pennell KD, Abriola LM, Dane JH (2001) Surfactant enhanced recovery of tetrachloroethylene from a porous medium containing low permeability lenses: 1. experimental studies. J Contam Hydrol 48:325–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    DEFRA (2007) The social cost of carbon and the shadow price. What they are and how to use them in economic appraisal in the UK. UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar

Books and Reviews

  1. Boardman AE, Greenberg DH, Vining AR, Weimer DL (2010) Cost-benefit analysis: concepts and practice. Pearson, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  2. Brouwer R, Pearce D (eds) (2005) Cost-benefit analysis and water resources management. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  3. Pearce DW, Atkinson G, Mourato S (2006) Cost benefit analysis and the environment – recent developments. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  4. Tientenberg T (2003) Environmental and natural resource economics. Addison Wesley, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.WorleyParsonsPerthAustralia
  2. 2.Economics for the Environment Consultancy (EFTEC)LondonUK