Stakeholder value‐linked sustainability assessment: Evaluating remedial alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA

Abstract

Regulatory decisions on remediation should consider affected communities’ needs and values, and how these might be impacted by remedial options; this process requires that diverse stakeholders are able to engage in a transparent consideration of value trade‐offs and of the distribution of risks and benefits associated with remedial actions and outcomes. The Stakeholder Values Assessment (SVA) tool was developed to evaluate remedial impacts on environmental quality, economic viability, and social equity in the context of stakeholder values and priorities. Stakeholder values were linked to the pillars of sustainability and also to a range of metrics to evaluate how sediment remediation affects these values. Sediment remedial alternatives proposed by the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site were scored for each metric, based upon data provided in published feasibility study (FS) documents. Metric scores were aggregated to generate scores for each value; these were then aggregated to generate scores for each pillar of sustainability. In parallel, the inferred priorities (in terms of regional remediation, restoration, planning, and development) of diverse stakeholder groups (SGs) were used to evaluate the sensitivity and robustness of the values‐based sustainability assessment to diverse SG priorities. This approach, which addresses social indicators of impact and then integrates them with indicators of environmental and economic impacts, goes well beyond the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act's (CERCLA) 9 criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives because it evaluates how remedial alternatives might be ranked in terms of the diverse values and priorities of stakeholders. This approach identified trade‐offs and points of potential contention, providing a systematic, semiquantitative, transparent valuation tool that can be used in community engagement. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2018;14:43–62. © 2017 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC)

Regional economic impact assessment: Evaluating remedial alternatives for the Portland Harbor Superfund Site, Portland, Oregon, USA

“…The present study illustrates a methodology for evaluating the regional economic impacts of Superfund remedial alternatives, an important consideration in evaluating alternatives at complex sediment sites with large potential costs. Regional economic impacts can be used—along with other economic, environmental, and social information—to develop a broad assessment of Superfund remediation alternatives (see Apitz et al this issue; Fitzpatrick et al this issue; McNally et al this issue; Ruffle et al this issue).…”

Ten years later: The progress and future of integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects

“…As part of these discussions, it is evident that early, meaningful stakeholder engagement is a vital component of the social component evaluation process, and early engagement helps shape the process of sustainability indicator selection (Cundy et al, ; Ridsdale & Noble, ). Several resources are available to sustainable remediation practitioners that guide performance of stakeholder engagement in community involvement and risk communication (USEPA, ), with even fewer resources that guide engagement in social indicator and impact methodology selection (Apitz et al, ; Harclerode et al, ; Nathanail et al, ).…”

Institutional Analysis on Stakeholder Participation in China's Environmental Impact Assessment: A State–Attribution–Motivation–Interaction–Reengineering Framework

“…However, the regulative pillar is not effective in guaranteeing fair independence for local residents and enterprises; the stakeholder's status and rights are not specified. Further, regulatory updates occur slowly (Furley et al 2018), the provisions are prone to legitimize decisions that have already been made, and the current SP arrangement is stuck on the lower rungs of Arnstein's participation ladder (Bobbio 2018 affected communities' needs and values (Apitz et al 2018), citizens have no legal remedy venues, which ultimately results in constant group confrontation, accompanied by emotional and health distress for residents, huge economic loss for the enterprise, and a loss of prestige for the government-an all-around losing prospect means that to some extent, regulative institutions represent partial failure.…”