Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating Holistic Environmental Consequences of Brownfield Management Options Using Consequential Life Cycle Assessment for Different Perspectives

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Brownfields are abandoned, idled, or underused sites whose reuse necessitates some sort of intervention. These sites are largely urban and are frequently contaminated. Brownfield management options can be associated with three types of environmental consequences: those resulting from changes in the site’s environmental quality (primary impacts); those resulting from the actual intervention stage (secondary impacts); and, if the vocation of the site changes, those resulting from effects on regional land use (tertiary impacts). Different stakeholders and decision-making contexts will place a different importance on each of these types of impacts. This article proposes a framework for comparing brownfield management options in regard to these three types of environmental impacts and for interpreting these results from different perspectives. The assessment framework is based on consequential life cycle assessment (LCA), which is shown to provide environmental information on the three types of impacts. The results for a case study are presented, where a “rehabilitation” option allowing residential redevelopment is compared to an “exposure minimization” option not resulting in the site being reused. Calculated primary and tertiary impacts are favorable to the rehabilitation option, whereas secondary impacts are favorable to the exposure minimization option. A ternary diagram presents the favorable option for different stereotypical perspectives. Tertiary impacts are much greater than secondary impacts, and consequently all perspectives that consider tertiary impacts favor rehabilitation. The perspective that considers primary and secondary impacts receives conflicting information. The ternary diagram, showing results for all perspectives, could possibly be useful for consensus-building among stakeholders.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alker S, Joy V, Roberts P, Smith N (2000) The definition of brownfield. J Environ Planning Manage 43(1):49–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Matiotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T (2002) Review of decision support tools for contaminated land and their use in Europe. Concerted Action “Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies” (CLARINET), Wien, Austria

  • Bardos RP, Kearney TE, Nathanail CP, Weenk A, Martin ID (2000) Assessing the wider environmental value of remediating land contamination. 7th International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, 18–22 September 2000, Leipzig, Germany

  • Bardos RP, Mariotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T (2001) Framework for decision support in contaminated land management in Europe and North America. Land Contamination Reclamation 9(1):149–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Beinat E, van Drunen MA, Nijboer MH, Koolenbrander JGM, Okx JP, Schütte AR (1997) REC: A methodology for comparing soil remediation alternatives on the basis of risk reduction, environmental merit and costs. CUR/NOBIS, Gouda

  • Bender A, Volkwein S, Battermann G, Hurtig H-W, Klöpffer W, Kohler W (1998) Life cycle assessment for remedial action techniques: Methodology and application. 6th International FZK/TNO Conference on Contaminated Soil, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanc A, Métivier-Pignon H, Gourdon R, Rousseaux P (2004) Life cycle assessment as a tool for controlling the development of technical activities: Application to the remediation of a site contaminated by sulfur. Adv Environ Res 8:613–627

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (1996a) Guidance manual for developing site-specific soil quality remediation objectives for contaminated sites in Canada. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment. (1996b) A framework for ecological risk assessment: General guidance. Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg

    Google Scholar 

  • Deason JP, Sherk GW, Carroll GA (2001) Public policies and private decisions affecting the redevelopment of brownfields: An analysis of critical factors, relative weights and areal differentials. George Washington University, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond ML, Page CA, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life cycle framework for contaminated site remediation options—Method and generic survey. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4):788–800

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Efroymson RA, Nicolette JP, Suter GW II. (2004) A framework for net environmental benefit analysis for remediation or restoration of contaminated sites. Environ Manage 34(3):315–331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Tillman A.-M, Molander S (2005) Normative ethics and methodology for life cycle assessment. J Cleaner Production 13:1225–1234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekvall T, Weidema BP (2004) System boundaries and input data in consequential life cycle inventory analysis. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 9(3):161–171

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency. (2001) Joint EMEP/CORINAIR atmospheric emission inventory guidebook, 3rd edn. Technical report No. 30, Group 7: Road transport. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Google Scholar 

  • European Environmental Agency. (2000) CORINE land cover. Commission of the European Communities OPOCE, Luxembourg

  • Ferber U, Grimski D (2002) Brownfields and redevelopment of urban areas. Austrian Federal Environment Agency, on behalf of Concerted Action “Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies” (CLARINET), Wien, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferguson C, Darmendrail D, Freier K, Jensen BK, Jensen J, Kasamas H, Urzelai A, Vegter J (1998) Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Volume 1. Scientific basis. CARACAS Project: Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in the European Union, LQM Press, Nottingham, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Frischknecht R (2005) The ecoinvent Database. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 10(3):166–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godin J, Ménard J.-F, Hains S, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004) Combined use of life cycle assessment and groundwater transport modeling to support contaminated site management. Human Ecol Risk Assessment 10(6):1099–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goedkoop M, Spriensma R (1999) The eco-indicator 99-a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment, methodology report. Pre consultants, Amersfoort, The Netherlands

  • Greenberg M, Burger J, Gochfeld M, Kosson D, Lowrie K, Mayer H, Powers C, Volz C, Vyas V (2005) End state land uses, sustainable protective systems, and risk management: A challenge for multi-generational stewards. Remediation J 16(1):91–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Issa L (2005) Measuring the success of the federal government’s brownfields program. Remediation J 15(3):83–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Lowrie K, Mayer E, Miller KT, Solitare L (2001) Brownfield redevelopment as a smart growth option in the United States. The Environmentalist 21:129–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenberg M, Mayer H, Lewis D (2004) Life-cycle cost in a highly uncertain economic environment: The case of managing the U.S. Department of Energy’s nuclear waste legacy. Federal Facilities Environ J 15(1):67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstetter P (1998) Perspectives in life cycle impact assessment; A structured approach to combine models of the technosphere, ecosphere, and valuesphere. Kluwer, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffstetter P, Braunschweig A, Mettier T, Müller-Wenk R, Tietje O (2000) The mixing triangle: Correlation and graphical decision support for LCA-based comparisons. J Ind Ecol 3(4):97–115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. (2006) CAN/CSA-ISO 14040-00 - Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and framework. ISBN 1-55324-156-8.16

  • Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: A new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 8(6):324–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (2006a). Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Part I—Methodological approach. Int J Life Cycle Assessment DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.1

  • Lesage P, Ekvall T, Deschênes L, Samson R (2006b) Environmental assessment of brownfield rehabilitation using two different life cycle inventory models. Part II—Case study. Int J Life Cycle Assessment DOI: http://www.dx.doi.org/10.1065/lca2006.10.279.2

  • Lindeijer E (2000) Review of land use impact methodologies. J Cleaner Production 8(4):273–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundie S, Huppes G (1999) Environmental assessment of products: The ranges of the societal preferences method. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 4(1):7–15

    Google Scholar 

  • MENV (1998) Politique de protection des sols et de réhabilitation des terrains contaminés. Ministère de l’Environnement du Québec, Québec

    Google Scholar 

  • National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (2003) Cleaning up the past, building the future—A national brownfield redevelopment strategy for Canada. National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Office of Energy Efficiency (2004) Comprehensive energy use database. Residential sector—Quebec. Available at http://www.oee.nrcan.gc.ca/Neud/dpa/trends_res_qc.cfm

  • Page CA, Diamond ML, Campbell M, McKenna S (1999) Life cycle framework for assessment of site remediation options: Case study. Environ Toxicol Chem 18(4):801–810

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Pennington DW, Potting J, Finnveden G, Lindeijer E, Jolliet O, Rydberg T, Rebitzer G (2004) Life cycle assessment part 2: Current impact assessment practice. Environmental International 30:721–735

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (1997) 1996 Census of population. Profile of marital status, common-law status, families, dwellings and households, for Canada, provinces, territories, census divisions and census subdivisions. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Statistics Canada (2002) 2001 Census of population. Profile of marital status, common-law status, families, dwellings and households, for Canada, provinces, territories, census divisions and census subdivisions. Statistics Canada, Ottawa, Canada

    Google Scholar 

  • Suèr P, Nilsson-Påledal S, Norrman J (2004) LCA for site remediation: A literature review. Soil Sediment Contamination 13(4):415–425

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan T, van Veen HJ, Davidson L, Bardos RP (2001) Review of discussions about decision support issues in Europe and North America at the NATO/CCMS special session, and overall conclusions. In NATO/CCMS pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III)—Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, Wiesbaden, pp 113–124

  • Thomas MR (2002) A GIS-based decision support system for brownfield redevelopment. Landscape Urban Planning 58(1):7–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tillman A.-M (2000) Significance of decision-making for LCA methodology. Environ Impact Assessment Rev 20:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toffoletto L, Deschênes L, Samson R (2004) LCA of ex-situ bioremediation of diesel-contaminated soil. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 10(6):406–416

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Udo de Haes H, Jolliet O, Finnveden G, Hauschild M, Krewitt W, Muller-Wenk R (1999) Best available practice regarding impact categories and category indicators in life cycle impact assessment—Background document for the Second Working Group on Life Cycle Impact Assessment of SETAC-Europe (WIA-2). Int J Life Cycle Assessment 4(2):66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Conference of Mayors. (2003) Recycling America’s land: A national report on brownfields redevelopment, Vol. IV. U.S. Conference of Mayors, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund: Volume 1. Human health evaluation manual (part A). Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1998) Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Office of Solid Waste, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2001) NATO/CCMS pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III)—Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, Wiesbaden

  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Nonroad model (nonroad engines, equipment and vehicles). Available at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/nonrdmdl.htm

  • Vegter JJ, Lowe J, Kasamas H (eds) (2002) Sustainable management of contaminated land—An overview. Austrian Federal Environment Agency, on behalf of Concerted Action “Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies” (CLARINET), Wien, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkwein S, Hurtig H.-W, Klöpffer W (1999) Life cycle assessment of contaminated sites remediation. Int J Life Cycle Assessment 4(5):263–274

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Weth D (2001) Case study: Cost benefit analysis/multi-criteria analyses for a remediation project. In NATO/CCMS pilot study evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated land and groundwater (phase III)—Special session on decision support tools. North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society, Wiesbaden, pp 69–82

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrisberg N, Udo de Haes HA, Triebswetter U, Eder P, Clift R (eds) (2002) Analytical tools for environmental design and management in a systems perspective. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank the partners of the NSERC Industrial Chair in Site Remediation and Management for their financial support: Alcan, Bell Canada, Canadian Pacific Railway, Cambior, Centre d’Expertise en Analyse Environnementale du Québec (CEAEQ), GDF/EDF, Hydro-Québec, Ministère des Affaires Municipales et de la Métropole, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Petro-Canada, Solvay, Total Fina ELF, and Ville de Montréal. We also gratefully acknowledge Marc Lapierre and his team at Canadian Pacific Railway for their support. Finally, the contribution of Tomas Ekvall of Chalmers University of Technology to the development of this model is deeply appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Chemical Engineering Department, CIRAIG Interuniversity Reference Center for the Life Cycle Assessment, Interpretation and Management of Products, Processes and Services, École Polytechnique de Montréal, P.O. Box 6079, Stn. Centre-Ville, H3T 1J4, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Pascal Lesage, Louise Deschênes & Réjean Samson

Authors
  1. Pascal Lesage
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Louise Deschênes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Réjean Samson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascal Lesage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lesage, P., Deschênes, L. & Samson, R. Evaluating Holistic Environmental Consequences of Brownfield Management Options Using Consequential Life Cycle Assessment for Different Perspectives. Environmental Management 40, 323–337 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0328-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-005-0328-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation