Sustainable remediation and redevelopment of brownfield sites
World Urbanization Prospects, The 2018 Revision, ST/ESA/SER.A/420 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2019).
Adams, D., De Sousa, C. & Tiesdell, S. Brownfield development: a comparison of North American and British approaches. Urban. Stud. 47, 75–104 (2010).
Overview of EPA’s Brownfields Program. USEPA https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program (2022).
Remediation Management of Complex Sites (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2017).
McHugh, T., Loll, P. & Eklund, B. Recent advances in vapor intrusion site investigations. J. Environ. Manage. 204, 783–792 (2017).
Lemming, G., Hauschild, M. Z. & Bjerg, P. L. Life cycle assessment of soil and groundwater remediation technologies: literature review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 115–127 (2010).
Haninger, K., Ma, L. & Timmins, C. The value of brownfield remediation. J. Assoc. Environ. Resour. Econ. 4, 197–241 (2017).
Pasetto, R., Mattioli, B. & Marsili, D. Environmental justice in industrially contaminated sites. A review of scientific evidence in the WHO European Region. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 16, 998 (2019).
Downey, L. & Hawkins, B. Race, income, and environmental inequality in the United States. Sociol. Perspect. 51, 759–781 (2008).
Assessing Global Land Use: Balancing Consumption with Sustainable Supply. A Report of the Working Group on Land and Soils of the International Resource Panel (UNEP, 2014).
Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe, COM(2011) 571 final (European Commission, 2011).
Bartke, S. & Schwarze, R. No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing support tools for land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. J. Environ. Manage. 153, 11–24 (2015).
Hou, D. & Al-Tabbaa, A. Sustainability: a new imperative in contaminated land remediation. Environ. Sci. Policy 39, 25–34 (2014).
Smith, J. W. Debunking myths about sustainable remediation. Remediation 29, 7–15 (2019).
Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2011).
Superfund Remedy Report, 16th edition (USEPA, 2020).
Ellis, D. E. & Hadley, P. W. Sustainable remediation white paper — integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation 19, 5–114 (2009).
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P. & Hellings, J. Using a hybrid LCA method to evaluate the sustainability of sediment remediation at the London Olympic Park. J. Clean. Prod. 83, 87–95 (2014).
O’Connor, D. & Hou, D. in Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Materials, Processes, and Assessment (ed. Hou, D.) 43–73 (Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier, 2020).
Beames, A., Broekx, S., Lookman, R., Touchant, K. & Seuntjens, P. Sustainability appraisal tools for soil and groundwater remediation: How is the choice of remediation alternative influenced by different sets of sustainability indicators and tool structures? Sci. Total Environ. 470, 954–966 (2014).
Hou, D. et al. Climate change mitigation potential of contaminated land redevelopment: a city-level assessment method. J. Clean. Prod. 171, 1396–1406 (2018).
Nagengast, A., Hendrickson, C. & Lange, D. Commuting from US brownfield and greenfield residential development neighborhoods. J. Urban. Plan. Dev. 137, 298–304 (2011).
Green Remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites (USEPA, 2008).
Surf-UK: A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation (Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), 2010).
Harclerode, M. et al. Integrating the social dimension in remediation decision‐making: state of the practice and way forward. Remediation 26, 11–42 (2015).
Dillon, L. Race, waste, and space: brownfield redevelopment and environmental justice at the Hunters Point shipyard. Antipode 46, 1205–1221 (2014).
Wu, Z. Investigating Changzhou Toxic site for schooling: improper construction practice and delayed soil remediation Project. CNR News (2016).
Cappuyns, V. Inclusion of social indicators in decision support tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options. J. Environ. Manage. 184, 45–56 (2016).
Huysegoms, L. & Cappuyns, V. Critical review of decision support tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options. J. Environ. Manage. 196, 278–296 (2017).
Bardos, P., Lazar, A. & Willenbrock, N. A Review of Published Sustainability Indicator Sets: How Applicable Are They to Contaminated Land Remediation Indicator-Set Development? (Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments (CL:AIRE), 2009).
Pizzol, L. et al. Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool to support effective brownfield regeneration. J. Environ. Manage. 166, 178–192 (2016).
Bardos, R. P. et al. Optimising value from the soft re-use of brownfield sites. Sci. Total Environ. 563, 769–782 (2016).
A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During the Feasibility Study (USEPA, 2000).
Squires, G. & Hutchison, N. Barriers to affordable housing on brownfield sites. Land Use Policy 102, 105276 (2021).
Bartke, S. et al. Targeted selection of brownfields from portfolios for sustainable regeneration: user experiences from five cases testing the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool. J. Environ. Manage. 184, 94–107 (2016).
Thornton, G., Franz, M., Edwards, D., Pahlen, G. & Nathanail, P. The challenge of sustainability: incentives for brownfield regeneration in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 10, 116–134 (2007).
Carroll, D. A. & Eger, R. J. III Brownfields, crime, and tax increment financing. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 36, 455–477 (2006).
Damigos, D. & Kaliampakos, D. Assessing the benefits of reclaiming urban quarries: a CVM analysis. Landsc. Urban Plann. 64, 249–258 (2003).
Gamper-Rabindran, S. & Timmins, C. Does cleanup of hazardous waste sites raise housing values? Evidence of spatially localized benefits. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 65, 345–360 (2013).
Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM) Program Benefits. USEPA https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/office-land-and-emergency-management-olem-program-benefits (2022).
Redevelopment Economics at Superfund Sites. USEPA https://www.epa.gov/superfund-redevelopment/redevelopment-economics-superfund-sites (2022).
Söderqvist, T. et al. Cost-benefit analysis as a part of sustainability assessment of remediation alternatives for contaminated land. J. Environ. Manage. 157, 267–278 (2015).
Glumac, B., Han, Q. & Schaefer, W. F. Actors’ preferences in the redevelopment of brownfield: latent class model. J. Urban. Plan. Dev. 141, 04014017 (2015).
Ameller, J., Rinaudo, J.-D. & Merly, C. The contribution of economic science to brownfield redevelopment: a review. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 16, 184–196 (2020).
Li, X. et al. Using a conceptual site model for assessing the sustainability of brownfield regeneration for a soft reuse: a case study of Port Sunlight River Park (UK). Sci. Total Environ. 652, 810–821 (2019).
A Citizen’s Guide to Solidification and Stabilization, EPA 542-F-12-019 (USEPA, 2012).
Andrew, R. M. Global CO2 emissions from cement production. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 10, 195–217 (2018).
Wang, L. et al. Green remediation of As and Pb contaminated soil using cement-free clay-based stabilization/solidification. Environ. Int. 126, 336–345 (2019).
Abdalqader, A. F., Jin, F. & Al-Tabbaa, A. Development of greener alkali-activated cement: utilisation of sodium carbonate for activating slag and fly ash mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 113, 66–75 (2016).
McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A. & Corder, G. D. Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1080–1090 (2011).
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A. & Hellings, J. Sustainable site clean-up from megaprojects: lessons from London 2012. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Engineering Sustainability, 61–70 (Thomas Telford, 2022).
Capobianco, O., Costa, G. & Baciocchi, R. Assessment of the environmental sustainability of a treatment aimed at soil reuse in a brownfield regeneration context. J. Ind. Ecol. 22, 1027–1038 (2018).
Palansooriya, K. N. et al. Soil amendments for immobilization of potentially toxic elements in contaminated soils: a critical review. Environ. Int. 134, 105046 (2020).
Haynes, R. J. & Naidu, R. Influence of lime, fertilizer and manure applications on soil organic matter content and soil physical conditions: a review. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 51, 123–137 (1998).
Chan, K. Y. & Heenan, D. P. Lime-induced loss of soil organic carbon and effect on aggregate stability. Soil. Sci. Soc. Am. J. 63, 1841–1844 (1999).
Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R. & Polasky, S. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418, 671–677 (2002).
Kong, X. et al. Super-stable mineralization of cadmium by calcium-aluminum layered double hydroxide and its large-scale application in agriculture soil remediation. Chem. Eng. J. 407, 127178 (2021).
Wang, L. et al. Biochar composites: emerging trends, field successes, and sustainability implications. Soil. Use Manag. 38, 14–38 (2022).
Tang, J., Zhu, W., Kookana, R. & Katayama, A. Characteristics of biochar and its application in remediation of contaminated soil. J. Biosci. Bioeng. 116, 653–659 (2013).
Wang, L. et al. Role of biochar toward carbon neutrality. Carbon Res. 2, 2 (2023).
He, M. et al. A critical review on performance indicators for evaluating soil biota and soil health of biochar-amended soils. J. Hazard. Mater. 414, 125378 (2021).
Blanco-Canqui, H. Does biochar improve all soil ecosystem services? GCB Bioenergy 13, 291–304 (2021).
Yaashikaa, P. R., Kumar, P. S., Varjani, S. & Saravanan, A. A critical review on the biochar production techniques, characterization, stability and applications for circular bioeconomy. Biotechnol. Rep. 28, e00570 (2020).
Hou, D. Sustainable remediation in China: elimination, immobilization, or dilution. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 15572–15574 (2021).
Wang, L. et al. Field trials of phytomining and phytoremediation: a critical review of influencing factors and effects of additives. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 2724–2774 (2020).
Pilon-Smits, E. Phytoremediation. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 56, 15–39 (2005).
Batty, L. C. & Dolan, C. The potential use of phytoremediation for sites with mixed organic and inorganic contamination. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 217–259 (2013).
Hou, D. et al. Metal contamination and bioremediation of agricultural soils for food safety and sustainability. Nat. Rev. Earth Environ. 1, 366–381 (2020).
Vocciante, M. et al. Enhancements in phytoremediation technology: environmental assessment including different options of biomass disposal and comparison with a consolidated approach. J. Environ. Manage. 237, 560–568 (2019).
Contreras, Á. et al. A poplar short-chain dehydrogenase reductase plays a potential key role in biphenyl detoxification. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2103378118 (2021).
Cary, T. J. et al. Field trial demonstrating phytoremediation of the military explosive RDX by XplA/XplB-expressing switchgrass. Nat. Biotechnol. 39, 1216–1219 (2021).
Song, Y. et al. Nature based solutions for contaminated land remediation and brownfield redevelopment in cities: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 663, 568–579 (2019).
Bolan, N. S., Park, J. H., Robinson, B., Naidu, R. & Huh, K. Y. Phytostabilization. A green approach to contaminant containment. Adv. Agron. 112, 145–204 (2011).
Stroo, H. & Ward, C. H. In Situ Remediation of Chlorinated Solvent Plumes (Springer, 2010).
Minjune, Y., D, A. M. & W, J. J. Back diffusion from thin low permeability zones. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 415–422 (2015).
Barros, F., Fernàndez‐Garcia, D., Bolster, D. & Sanchez‐Vila, X. A risk‐based probabilistic framework to estimate the endpoint of remediation: concentration rebound by rate‐limited mass transfer. Water Resour. Res. 49, 1929–1942 (2013).
Crofts, T. S. et al. Shared strategies for β-lactam catabolism in the soil microbiome. Nat. Chem. Biol. 14, 556–564 (2018).
Huang, S. & Jaffé, P. R. Defluorination of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) by Acidimicrobium sp. strain A6. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 11410–11419 (2019).
Rogers, J. D., Ferrer, I., Tummings, S. S., Bielefeldt, A. R. & Ryan, J. N. Inhibition of biodegradation of hydraulic fracturing compounds by glutaraldehyde: groundwater column and microcosm experiments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 10251–10261 (2017).
Introduction to In-situ Bioremediation of Groundwater, 542-R-13-018 (USEPA, 2013).
Ottosen, C. B. et al. Assessment of chlorinated ethenes degradation after field scale injection of activated carbon and bioamendments: application of isotopic and microbial analyses. J. Contam. Hydrol. 240, 103794 (2021).
Sinha, R. K., Valani, D., Sinha, S., Singh, S. & Herat, S. in Solid Waste Management and Environmental Remediation (eds Faerber, T. & Herzog, J.) (Nova Science, 2009).
Prior, J. Factors influencing residents’ acceptance (support) of remediation technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 624, 1369–1386 (2018).
Lemming, G. et al. Environmental impacts of remediation of a trichloroethene-contaminated site: life cycle assessment of remediation alternatives. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 9163–9169 (2010).
Vigil, M., Marey-Pérez, M. F., Huerta, G. M. & Cabal, V. Á. Is phytoremediation without biomass valorization sustainable? Comparative LCA of landfilling vs. anaerobic co-digestion. Sci. Total Environ. 505, 844–850 (2015).
Espada, J. J., Rodriguez, R., Gari, V., Salcedo-Abraira, P. & Bautista, L. F. Coupling phytoremediation of Pb-contaminated soil and biomass energy production: a comparative life cycle assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 840, 156675 (2022).
Jiang, S. J. et al. Emerging disposal technologies of harmful phytoextraction biomass (HPB) containing heavy metals: a review. Chemosphere 290, 133266 (2022).
Toth, C. R. et al. Anaerobic benzene biodegradation linked to the growth of highly specific bacterial clades. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 7970–7980 (2021).
Cadotte, M., Deschênes, L. & Samson, R. Selection of a remediation scenario for a diesel-contaminated site using LCA. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 239–251 (2007).
Sondergaard, G. L., Binning, P. J., Bondgaard, M. & Bjerg, P. L. Multi-criteria assessment tool for sustainability appraisal of remediation alternatives for a contaminated site. J. Soils Sed. 18, 3334–3348 (2018).
Technical and Regulatory Guidance for In Situ Chemical Oxidation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater, 2nd edition (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2005).
Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A. & Luo, J. Assessing effects of site characteristics on remediation secondary life cycle impact with a generalized framework. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 57, 1083–1100 (2014).
O’Carroll, D., Sleep, B., Krol, M., Boparai, H. & Kocur, C. Nanoscale zero valent iron and bimetallic particles for contaminated site remediation. Adv. Water Resour. 51, 104–122 (2013).
Pak, T. et al. Pore-scale investigation of the use of reactive nanoparticles for in situ remediation of contaminated groundwater source. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 117, 13366–13373 (2020).
Cao, Z. et al. Unveiling the role of sulfur in rapid defluorination of florfenicol by sulfidized nanoscale zero-valent iron in water under ambient conditions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 2628–2638 (2021).
Han, Y. & Yan, W. Reductive dechlorination of trichloroethene by zero-valent iron nanoparticles: reactivity enhancement through sulfidation treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 12992–13001 (2016).
O’Connor, D., Hou, D., Liu, Q., Palmer, M. R. & Varma, R. S. Nature-inspired and sustainable synthesis of sulfur-bearing Fe-rich nanoparticles. ACS Sustain. Chem. Eng. 8, 15791–15808 (2020).
Hong, J., Wang, L., Lu, X. & Deng, D. Peroxide stabilizers remarkably increase the longevity of thermally activated peroxydisulfate for enhanced ISCO remediation. Water Res. 224, 119046 (2022).
O’Connor, D. et al. Sustainable in situ remediation of recalcitrant organic pollutants in groundwater with controlled release materials: a review. J. Control. Rel. 283, 200–213 (2018).
Garcia, A. N. et al. Sulfidated nano zerovalent iron (S-nZVI) for in situ treatment of chlorinated solvents: a field study. Water Res. 174, 115594 (2020).
Wang, Y. et al. Green synthesis of nanoparticles for the remediation of contaminated waters and soils: constituents, synthesizing methods, and influencing factors. J. Clean. Prod. 226, 540–549 (2019).
Mondal, P., Anweshan, A. & Purkait, M. K. Green synthesis and environmental application of iron-based nanomaterials and nanocomposite: a review. Chemosphere 259, 127509 (2020).
O’Connor, D. et al. Biochar application for the remediation of heavy metal polluted land: a review of in situ field trials. Sci. Total Environ. 619, 815–826 (2018).
Permeable Reactive Barriers: Lessons Learned/New Directions (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council, 2005).
Bayer, P. & Finkel, M. Life cycle assessment of active and passive groundwater remediation technologies. J. Contam. Hydrol. 83, 171–199 (2006).
Higgins, M. R. & Olson, T. M. Life-cycle case study comparison of permeable reactive barrier versus pump-and-treat remediation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43, 9432–9438 (2009).
Wilkin, R. T. et al. Geochemical and isotope study of trichloroethene degradation in a zero-valent iron permeable reactive barrier: a twenty-two-year performance evaluation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 296–306 (2018).
Mak, M. S. H. & Lo, I. M. C. Environmental life cycle assessment of permeable reactive barriers: effects of construction methods, reactive materials and groundwater constituents. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 10148–10154 (2011).
Li, J. et al. Sustainable environmental remediation via biomimetic multifunctional lignocellulosic nano-framework. Nat. Commun. 13, 1–13 (2022).
Laramay, F. & Crimi, M. A sustainability assessment of an in situ ultrasonic reactor for remediation of PFAS-contaminated groundwater. Remediation 31, 59–72 (2020).
Dixon, L. A. M. In the bleak mid-winter: the value of brownfield sites for birds during the winter. Urban. For. Urban Green. 75, 127690 (2022).
Macgregor, C. J. et al. Brownfield sites promote biodiversity at a landscape scale. Sci. Total Environ. 804, 150162 (2022).
Harrison, C. & Davies, G. Conserving biodiversity that matters: practitioners’ perspectives on brownfield development and urban nature conservation in London. J. Environ. Manage. 65, 95–108 (2002).
Nature-Based Solutions to Address Global Societal Challenges (IUCN, 2016).
Castellar, J. A. C. et al. Nature-based solutions in the urban context: terminology, classification and scoring for urban challenges and ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 779, 146237 (2021).
Keesstra, S. et al. The superior effect of nature based solutions in land management for enhancing ecosystem services. Sci. Total Environ. 610–611, 997–1009 (2018).
Li, H. Enhancing the stability and sustainability of ecosystem. People’s Daily (2022).
Séré, G. et al. Soil construction: a step for ecological reclamation of derelict lands. J. Soils Sed. 8, 130–136 (2008).
Rokia, S. et al. Modelling agronomic properties of technosols constructed with urban wastes. Waste Manage. 34, 2155–2162 (2014).
Rees, F. et al. Storage of carbon in constructed technosols: in situ monitoring over a decade. Geoderma 337, 641–648 (2019).
Rodrigues, J. et al. Life cycle impacts of soil construction, an innovative approach to reclaim brownfields and produce nonedible biomass. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 36–43 (2019).
Nissim, W. G. & Labrecque, M. Reclamation of urban brownfields through phytoremediation: implications for building sustainable and resilient towns. Urban For. Urban Green. 65, 127364 (2021).
O’Connor, D. et al. Phytoremediation: climate change resilience and sustainability assessment at a coastal brownfield redevelopment. Environ. Int. 130, 104945 (2019).
Hale, S. E. et al. From landfills to landscapes-Nature-based solutions for water management taking into account legacy contamination. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 18, 99–107 (2022).
Greenway, M. Stormwater wetlands for the enhancement of environmental ecosystem services: case studies for two retrofit wetlands in Brisbane, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 163, S91–S100 (2017).
Smetana, S. M. & Crittenden, J. C. Sustainable plants in urban parks: a life cycle analysis of traditional and alternative lawns in Georgia, USA. Landsc. Urban. Plann. 122, 140–151 (2014).
Navratil, J. et al. Brownfields do not ‘only live twice’: the possibilities for heritage preservation and the enlargement of leisure time activities in Brno, the Czech Republic. Cities 74, 52–63 (2018).
Hu, K. & Pollard, M. Q. Inspired or dystopian, Beijing’s Big Air venue sparks social media debate. Reuters (2022).
Maco, B. et al. Resilient remediation: addressing extreme weather and climate change, creating community value. Remediation 29, 7–18 (2018).
Wang, F. et al. Technologies and perspectives for achieving carbon neutrality. Innovation 2, 100180 (2021).
Niblick, B. & Landis, A. E. Assessing renewable energy potential on United States marginal and contaminated sites. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 60, 489–497 (2016).
Adelaja, S., Shaw, J., Beyea, W. & McKeown, J. C. Renewable energy potential on brownfield sites: a case study of Michigan. Energy Policy 38, 7021–7030 (2010).
What is RE-Powering. USEPA https://www.epa.gov/re-powering/what-re-powering (2022).
Development of Wind Power Facility Helps Revitalize Rust Belt City (USEPA, 2012).
An Old New England Town Lights the Way with Solar (USEPA, 2014).
Pandey, V. C., Bajpai, O. & Singh, N. Energy crops in sustainable phytoremediation. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 54, 58–73 (2016).
Tripathi, V., Edrisi, S. A. & Abhilash, P. Towards the coupling of phytoremediation with bioenergy production. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 57, 1386–1389 (2016).
Pulighe, G. et al. Ongoing and emerging issues for sustainable bioenergy production on marginal lands in the Mediterranean regions. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 103, 58–70 (2019).
Saxena, G., Purchase, D., Mulla, S. I., Saratale, G. D. & Bharagava, R. N. Phytoremediation of heavy metal-contaminated sites: eco-environmental concerns, field studies, sustainability issues, and future prospects. Rev. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 249, 71–131 (2019).
Ni, Z. et al. Comparative life-cycle assessment of aquifer thermal energy storage integrated with in situ bioremediation of chlorinated volatile organic compounds. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 3039–3049 (2020).
Ni, Z., van Gaans, P., Smit, M., Rijnaarts, H. & Grotenhuis, T. Combination of aquifer thermal energy storage and enhanced bioremediation: resilience of reductive dechlorination to redox changes. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 100, 3767–3780 (2016).
Libera, A. et al. Climate change impact on residual contaminants under sustainable remediation. J. Contam. Hydrol. 226, 103518 (2019).
Wild, T., Dempsey, N. & Broadhead, A. Volunteered information on nature-based solutions — dredging for data on deculverting. Urban. For. Urban Green. 40, 254–263 (2019).
Erdem, M. & Nassauer, J. I. Design of brownfield landscapes under different contaminant remediation policies in Europe and the United States. Landsc. J. 32, 277–292 (2013).
Curran, W. & Hamilton, T. Just green enough: contesting environmental gentrification in Greenpoint, Brooklyn. Local. Env. 17, 1027–1042 (2012).
Kabisch, N. et al. Nature-based solutions to climate change mitigation and adaptation in urban areas: perspectives on indicators, knowledge gaps, barriers, and opportunities for action. Ecol. Soc. 21, 39 (2016).
Norrman, J. et al. Integration of the subsurface and the surface sectors for a more holistic approach for sustainable redevelopment of urban brownfields. Sci. Total Environ. 563, 879–889 (2016).
Loures, L. & Vaz, E. Exploring expert perception towards brownfield redevelopment benefits according to their typology. Habitat. Int. 72, 66–76 (2018).
Hou, D. & O’Connor, D. in Sustainable Remediation of Contaminated Soil and Groundwater: Materials, Processes, and Assessment (ed. Hou, D.) 1–17 (Butterworth-Heinemann/Elsevier, 2020).
Witters, N. et al. Phytoremediation, a sustainable remediation technology? II: Economic assessment of CO2 abatement through the use of phytoremediation crops for renewable energy production. Biomass Bioenergy 39, 470–477 (2012).
Rist, L., Lee, J. S. H. & Koh, L. P. Biofuels: social benefits. Science 326, 1344–1344 (2009).
Schüppler, S., Fleuchaus, P. & Blum, P. Techno-economic and environmental analysis of an aquifer thermal energy storage (ATES) in Germany. Geotherm. Energy 7, 1–24 (2019).
Lu, H., Tian, P. & He, L. Evaluating the global potential of aquifer thermal energy storage and determining the potential worldwide hotspots driven by socio-economic, geo-hydrologic and climatic conditions. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 112, 788–796 (2019).
Barns, D. G., Taylor, P. G., Bale, C. S. & Owen, A. Important social and technical factors shaping the prospects for thermal energy storage. J. Energy Storage 41, 102877 (2021).
Hoek, G. et al. A review of exposure assessment methods for epidemiological studies of health effects related to industrially contaminated sites. Epidemiol. Prev. 42, 21–36 (2018).
Swartjes, F. Human health risk assessment related to contaminated land: state of the art. Environ. Geochem. Health 37, 651–673 (2015).
Lodge, E. K. et al. The association between residential proximity to brownfield sites and high-traffic areas and measures of immunity. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 30, 824–834 (2020).
Litt, J. S., Tran, N. L. & Burke, T. A. Examining urban brownfields through the public health ‘macroscope’. Environ. Health Perspect. 110, 183–193 (2002).
Technology Screening Matrix. Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (FRTR) https://frtr.gov/matrix/default.cfm (2022).
Laprise, M., Lufkin, S. & Rey, E. An indicator system for the assessment of sustainability integrated into the project dynamics of regeneration of disused urban areas. Build. Environ. 86, 29–38 (2015).
Brown, B. B., Perkins, D. D. & Brown, G. Crime, new housing, and housing incivilities in a first‐ring suburb: multilevel relationships across time. Hous. Policy Debate 15, 301–345 (2004).
Gallagher, P. M., Spatari, S. & Cucura, J. Hybrid life cycle assessment comparison of colloidal silica and cement grouted soil barrier remediation technologies. J. Hazard. Mater. 250–251, 421–430 (2013).
Papageorgiou, A., Azzi, E. S., Enell, A. & Sundberg, C. Biochar produced from wood waste for soil remediation in Sweden: carbon sequestration and other environmental impacts. Sci. Total Environ. 776, 145953 (2021).
Pranjic, A. M. et al. Comparative life cycle assessment of possible methods for the treatment of contaminated soil at an environmentally degraded site. J. Environ. Manage. 218, 497–508 (2018).
Sakaguchi, I. et al. Assessment of soil remediation technologies by comparing health risk reduction and potential impacts using unified index, disability-adjusted life years. Clean. Technol. Environ. Policy 17, 1663–1670 (2015).
Sanscartier, D., Margni, M., Reimer, K. & Zeeb, B. Comparison of the secondary environmental impacts of three remediation alternatives for a diesel-contaminated site in Northern Canada. Soil. Sediment. Contam. 19, 338–355 (2010).
Green Remediation: Best Management Practices for Excavation and Surface Restoration (USEPA, 2019).
Suer, P. & Andersson-Skold, Y. Biofuel or excavation? Life cycle assessment (LCA) of soil remediation options. Biomass Bioenergy 35, 969–981 (2011).
Pump-and-Treat Ground-Water Remediation. A Guide for Decision Makers and Practitioners (USEPA, 1996).
Groundwater Pump and Treat. FRTR https://frtr.gov/matrix/Groundwater-Pump-and-Treat/ (2022).
Desorption and Incineration. FRTR https://frtr.gov/matrix/Desorption-Incineration/ (2022).
Community Guide to Thermal Desorption (USEPA, 2021).
Community Guide to In Situ Chemical Reduction (USEPA, 2021).
Stabilization and Solidification of Contaminated Soil and Waste: A Manual of Practice (USEPA, 2015).
Handbook for Stabilization/Solidification of Hazardous Wastes (USEPA, 2015).
Jin, Y. et al. Integrated life cycle assessment for sustainable remediation of contaminated agricultural soil in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 12032–12042 (2021).
Owsianiak, M., Lemming, G., Hauschild, M. Z. & Bjerg, P. L. Assessing environmental sustainability of remediation technologies in a life cycle perspective is not so easy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47, 1182–1183 (2013).
ISO/PRF 18504 Soil Quality — Guidance on Sustainable Remediation. ISO https://www.iso.org/standard/62688.html (2017).
Lesage, P., Ekvall, T., Deschenes, L. & Samson, R. Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Part 1: methodological approach. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 12, 391–398 (2007).
Earles, J. M. & Halog, A. Consequential life cycle assessment: a review. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 16, 445–453 (2011).
