The scale of land-contamination problems, and of the responses to them, makes achieving sustainability in contaminated land remediation an important objective. The Sustainable Remediation Forum in the UK (SuRF-UK) was established in 2007 to support more sustainable remediation practice in the UK. The current international interest in 'sustainable remediation' has achieved a fairly rapid consensus on concepts, descriptions and definitions for sustainable remediation, which are now being incorporated into an ISO standard. However the sustainability assessment methods being used remain diverse with a range of (mainly) semi-quantitative and quantitative approaches and tools developed, or in development. Sustainability assessment is site specific and subjective. It depends on the inclusion of a wide range of considerations across different stakeholder perspectives. Taking a tiered approach to sustainability assessment offers important advantages, starting from a qualitative assessment and moving through to semi-quantitative and quantitative assessments on an 'as required' basis only. It is also clear that there are a number of 'easy wins' that could improve performance against sustainability criteria right across the site management process. SuRF-UK has provided a checklist of 'sustainable management practices' that describes some of these. This paper provides the rationale for, and an outline of, and recently published SuRF-UK guidance on preparing for and framing sustainability assessments; carrying out qualitative sustainability assessment; and simple good management practices to improve sustainability across contaminated land management activities.

Sustainability considerations have become widely recognised in contaminated land management and are now accepted as an important component of remediation planning and implementation around the world. The Sustainable Remediation Forum for the UK (SuRF-UK) published guidance on sustainability criteria for consideration in drawing up (or framing) assessments, organised across 15 “headline” categories, five for the environment element of sustainability, five for the social, and five for the economic. This paper describes how the SuRF-UK indicator guidance was developed, and the rationale behind its structure and approach. It describes its use in remediation option appraisal in the UK, and reviews the international papers that have applied or reviewed it. It then reviews the lessons learned from its initial use and the opinions and findings of international commentators, and concludes with recommendations on how the indicator categories might be further refined in the future. The key findings of this review are that the SuRF-UK framework and indicator guidance is well adopted into practice in the UK. It is widely recognised as the most appropriate mechanism to support sustainability-based decision making in contaminated land decision making. It has influenced the development of other national and international guidance and standards on sustainable remediation. However, there is room for some fine tuning of approach based on the lessons learned during its application.

A risk-based framework for targeting investment in prescribed burning in Western Australia is presented. Bushfire risk is determined through a risk assessment and prioritisation process. The framework provides principles and a rationale for programming fuel management with indicators to demonstrate that bushfire risk has been reduced to an acceptable level. Indicators provide targets for fuel management that are applicable throughout the state and can be customised to meet local circumstances. The framework identifies eight bushfire risk management zones having broad consistency of land use, fire environment and management approach, which combine to create a characteristic risk profile. Thirteen fuel types based primarily on structural attributes of the vegetation that influence fire behaviour are recognised and used to assign models for fuel accumulation and fire behaviour prediction. Each bushfire risk management zone is divided into fire management areas, based on the management intent. These are areas where fuels will be managed primarily to minimise the likelihood of fire causing adverse impacts on human settlements or critical infrastructure, to reduce the risk of bushfire at the landscape scale or to achieve other land management outcomes. Indicators of acceptable bushfire risk are defined for each fire management area and are modified according to the distribution of assets and potential fire behaviour in the landscape. Risk criteria established in the framework can be converted to spatially represented targets for fuel management in each zone and can be reported against to measure the effectiveness of the fuel management program. In areas where the primary intent is to reduce the risk of bushfire at the landscape scale, managers have flexibility to apply prescribed fire in ways that maintain and enhance ecosystem services, nature conservation and landscape values through variation in the seasonality, intensity and scale of planned burning.

No abstract

No abstract