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 4 th 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) — University of Venice, Italy — SURF-Canada — University of Brighton, UK — SURF-Italy — University of Nottingham, UK — SURF-Taiwan — University of Saskatchewan, Canada — SURF-UK — Montclair State University, Policy Makers/Regulators New Jersey, USA — Common Forum/ ICCL — University of Illinois at International Organization Chicago, USA for Standardization (ISO) — University KU Leuven, — Working Group 12 of TC190/ Belgium SC7

— 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 (4) (2) 2. Socio-Institutional (1) 3. Socio-Economic (3) 4. Socio-Environmental (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

2. Health and Safety 1 . Stakeholder Collaboration *on-site worker & community

4. Alleviate Undesirable 3. Benefits Community at Large Community Impact — Improve Quality of Life — Neighborhood/Locality Scale — social and human capital — noise — reuse of treated media/ — odor materials — congestion — redevelopment of the — business disruptions property (reuse of the site) — compromising local heritage — Increase of property value and cultural concerns (site and surroundings)

5. Economic Vitality 6. Social Justice — increased housing availability — contracting locally — employment opportunities — investing in new skill training and education — reused brownfields for equitable use — incorporating redevelopment

7. Regional and Global Societal 8. Value of Ecosystem Services Impacts and Natural Resources Capital

9. Risk-Based Land 10. Contribution to Local and Management and Remedial Regional Sustainability Solutions Policies and Initiatives — distribute resources to — renewable energy effectively address the site- — climate change adaptation specific human health, — regional land use policies environmental justice, and — ecological restoration goals community issues associated — resource consumption with contaminated sites

Understand and Identify: Social factors that may work in favor of or against 1. sustainable remediation Access to labour, publicity (buy in) — Social factors and stakeholders that are affected by 2. remediation Perceived and actual risks, business access, demographics — Stakeholders that are affected by remediation 3. 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

Pope et al. (2004) Achieve a particular outcome assessed based on TBL objectives • Encourage positive impacts • Fewer trade-offs and conflicts

— 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: Technique: — Panel Recommendation to — Sustainable Return on incorporate into assessment Investment (sROI) Contaminated Material: Contaminated Material: — PAHs, Hyrdocarbons, PCBs, — Polyethlene Terephthalate Dioxins, Heavy Metals Method: Method: — Dig & Dump/Recycle — Soil Capping, Water treatment & Capping End Use: End Use: — Park & Public Space — Park, Sports Facilities, Art Installations, & Playground

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