SURF Technical Initiative Team Presenters: Reanne Ridsdale & - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SURF Technical Initiative Team Presenters: Reanne Ridsdale & Melissa Harclerode Contributing Authors: D. Darmendrail, P. Bardos,

• F. Alexandrescu, P. Nathanail, L. Pizzol, E. Rizzo

4th Annual Sustainable Remediation Conference April 26, 2016 Montreal, Quebec

— Technical Initiative Team — Research Problem & Goal — What is the Social Dimension? — Methods — Findings:

— Main Societal Impact Categories — Assessment Techniques — Case Studies

— Opportunities & Challenges — Closing Thoughts

Professional Organizations Academics

— SURF (USA) — SURF-Canada — SURF-Italy — SURF-Taiwan — SURF-UK

Policy Makers/Regulators

— Common Forum/ ICCL

International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

— Working Group 12 of TC190/

SC7

— University of Venice, Italy — University of Brighton, UK — University of Nottingham, UK — University of Saskatchewan,

Canada

— Montclair State University,

New Jersey, USA

— University of Illinois at

Chicago, USA

— University KU Leuven,

Belgium

— Lack of ‘success stories’ — No presence of indicators or tools? — Issues of addressing social aspects through

engineering lens

— Lack of interdisciplinary teams

Find existing social indicators and tools and apply them to SR.

• 1. Common Practice

— social dimension of ‘Sustainability’ — assessed among various countries and organizations — Looking to other disciplines

• 2. Methodologies & Case Studies

— quantitatively and qualitatively evaluate societal

impacts

• 1. Social-Individual
• 2. Socio-Institutional
• 3. Socio-Economic
• 4. Socio-Environmental

(1) (3) (4) (2) (Reddy ¡et ¡al., ¡2014) ¡

— Document Review

— SuRF Working Papers — Literature Review — Discussions within Networks — Social Scientist input

— Case Study Review

Ten Main Impact Categories Common Tools & Methods

• 1. Stakeholder Collaboration
• 2. Health and Safety

*on-site worker & community

• 3. Benefits Community at Large
• 4. Alleviate Undesirable

Community Impact

— Improve Quality of Life

— social and human capital — reuse of treated media/

materials

— redevelopment of the

property (reuse of the site)

— Increase of property value

(site and surroundings)

— Neighborhood/Locality Scale

— noise — odor — congestion — business disruptions — compromising local heritage

and cultural concerns

• 5. Economic Vitality
• 6. Social Justice

— increased housing availability — employment opportunities — reused brownfields for

equitable use

— contracting locally — investing in new skill training

and education

— incorporating redevelopment

• 7. Regional and Global Societal

Impacts

• 8. Value of Ecosystem Services

and Natural Resources Capital

• 9. Risk-Based Land

Management and Remedial Solutions

• 10. Contribution to Local and

Regional Sustainability Policies and Initiatives

— renewable energy — climate change adaptation — regional land use policies — ecological restoration goals — resource consumption — distribute resources to

effectively address the site- specific human health, environmental justice, and community issues associated with contaminated sites

Understand and Identify:

1.

Social factors that may work in favor of or against sustainable remediation

—

Access to labour, publicity (buy in)

2.

Social factors and stakeholders that are affected by remediation

—

Perceived and actual risks, business access, demographics

3.

Stakeholders that are affected by remediation

—

Business owners, community members, government, NGOs

— Interviews, Focus Groups, Social Network Analysis

— case study: Vega Science and Technology Park, Venice,

Italy (Alexandrescu, et al., 2015)

— Survey Questions

— case study: Tar Ponds and Coke Ovens, Sydney, Nova

Scotia, Canada (SURF Canada)

— Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

— case study: Gunnar Mine and Mill Tailings Cover,

Saskatchewan Research Council Pilot Project (Petelina et al.,

2014)

— Ethnographic research

— A Civil Action

Achieve a particular outcome assessed based on TBL objectives

• Encourage positive impacts
• Fewer trade-offs and conflicts

Pope et al. (2004)

— A rating metric and an

aggregation rule that combines individual ratings into a single overall score

— qualitative and quantitative

metrics

— case studies:

— social sustainability evaluation

matrix tool

(Reddy et al., 2014)

— Monetized benefits to society

• vs. monetized costs to

society of undertaking particular courses of action

— case studies:

— sustainable return on

investment

(Bohmholdt 2014)

— costs borne by society

Evaluation - monetizing global impacts

(Harclerode et al., 2013; In Press)

• 1. Sydney Tar Ponds, Nova Scotia, Canada
• 2. Closed Landfill, North-Eastern States, USA

Sydney Tar Ponds Closed Landfill

Technique:

— Panel Recommendation to

incorporate into assessment Contaminated Material:

— PAHs, Hyrdocarbons, PCBs,

Dioxins, Heavy Metals Method:

— Soil Capping, Water

treatment & Capping End Use:

— Park, Sports Facilities, Art

Installations, & Playground Technique:

— Sustainable Return on

Investment (sROI) Contaminated Material:

— Polyethlene Terephthalate

Method:

— Dig & Dump/Recycle

End Use:

— Park & Public Space

Opportunities, Challenges, Future Research, & Closing Thoughts

• 1. Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement
• 2. Risk Perception of Stakeholders
• 3. Trade-Offs Among Triple Bottom Line Dimensions

• 1. Value of Social Cost Metrics
• 2. Risk Perception of Reuse
• 3. Integrated and Objective-led Assessment

Approach

• 4. Life-Cycle Assessment

— The principle of Occam’s Razor (parsimony) (Hiroshi,

1997) should apply. It is better to be comprehensive in the coverage of social issues than to be sophisticated in the quantification of a few.

— Take advantage of available tools and experts. — Have multi-disciplinary teams:

— Social Scientist, urban planner, economist, public

• utreach (NGO).

Reanne Ridsdale, M.A., B.A. Drridsdale@gmail.com Melissa Harclerode, ENV SP, PhD Candidate harclerodema@cdmsmith.com

Entire Team:

— D. Darmendrail: Common Forum/ICCL, Paris — P. Bardos: r3 Environmental Technology Ltd,

University of Brighton, SuRF UK

— F. Alexandrescu: University of Venice, Italy — P. Nathanail: University of Nottingham, Land

Quality Management Ltd, ISO working group, SuRF UK

— L. Pizzol: University of Venice, Italy — E. Rizzo: University of Venice, SuRF Italy, FP7

European Project HOMBRE & TIMBRE