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

outreach (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