In the last decade, the regeneration of derelict or underused sites, fully or partly located in urban areas (or so called "brownfields"), has become more common, since free developable land (or so called "greenfields") has more and more become a scare and, hence, more expensive resource, especially in densely populated areas. Although the regeneration of brownfield sites can offer development potentials, the complexity of these sites requires considerable efforts to successfully complete their revitalization projects and the proper selection of promising sites is a pre-requisite to efficiently allocate the limited financial resources. The identification and analysis of success factors for brownfield sites regeneration can support investors and decision makers in selecting those sites which are the most advantageous for successful regeneration. The objective of this paper is to present the Timbre Brownfield Prioritization Tool (TBPT), developed as a web-based solution to assist stakeholders responsible for wider territories or clusters of brownfield sites (portfolios) to identify which brownfield sites should be preferably considered for redevelopment or further investigation. The prioritization approach is based on a set of success factors properly identified through a systematic stakeholder engagement procedure. Within the TBPT these success factors are integrated by means of a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methodology, which includes stakeholders' requalification objectives and perspectives related to the brownfield regeneration process and takes into account the three pillars of sustainability (economic, social and environmental dimensions). The tool has been applied to the South Moravia case study (Czech Republic), considering two different requalification objectives identified by local stakeholders, namely the selection of suitable locations for the development of a shopping centre and a solar power plant, respectively. The application of the TBPT to the case study showed that it is flexible and easy to adapt to different local contexts, allowing the assessors to introduce locally relevant parameters identified according to their expertise and considering the availability of local data.

No abstract

Hazard identification is an important step in assessing nanomaterial risk and is required under multiple regulatory frameworks in the US, Europe and worldwide. Given the emerging nature of the field and complexity of nanomaterials, multiple studies on even basic material properties often result in varying data pointing in different directions when data interpretation is attempted. Weight of evidence (WOE) evaluation has been recommended for nanomaterial risk assessment, but the majority of WOE frameworks are qualitative in nature and do not satisfy the growing needs for objectivity and transparency that are necessary for regulatory decision making. This paper implements a quantitative WOE framework that utilizes multi-criteria decision analysis methodology for integrating individual studies on nanomaterial hazard resulting from physico-chemical and toxicological properties of nanomaterials. For the first time, a WOE approach explicitly integrates expert evaluation of data quality of available information. Application of the framework is illustrated for titanium dioxide nanoparticles (nano-TiO2), but the approach is designed to compare the relative hazard of several nanomaterials as well as emerging stressors in general.

Nanotechnologies have been increasingly used in industrial applications and consumer products across several sectors, including construction, transportation, energy, and healthcare. The widespread application of these technologies has raised concerns regarding their environmental, health, societal, and economic impacts. This has led to the investment of enormous resources in Europe and beyond into the development of tools to facilitate the risk assessment and management of nanomaterials, and to inform more robust risk governance process. In this context, several risk governance frameworks have been developed. In our study, we present and review those, and identify a set of criteria and tools for risk evaluation, mitigation, and communication, the implementation of which can inform better risk management decision-making by various stakeholders from e.g., industry, regulators, and the civil society. Based on our analysis, we recommend specific methods from decision science and information technologies that can improve the existing risk governance tools so that they can communicate, evaluate, and mitigate risks more transparently, taking stakeholder perspectives and expert opinion into account, and considering all relevant criteria in establishing the risk-benefit balance of these emerging technologies to enable more robust decisions about the governance of their risks.

No abstract