What's the point? The contribution of a sustainability view in contaminated site remediation Robert Anderson a, ⁎, Jenny Norrman a , Pär-Erik Back b , Tore Söderqvist c , Lars Rosén a a Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, Sven Hultins gata 6, 412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden b Swedish Geotechnical Institute, Kornhamnstorg 61, 111 27 Stockholm, Sweden c Anthesis Enveco AB, Barnhusgatan 4, 111 23 Stockholm, Sweden HIGHLIGHTS • The contribution of a sustainability view compared to other decision support ap- proaches is analyzed. • Four alternative assessment scenarios, representing more limited assessment views, were analyzed using the SCORE tool. • The analysis is based on four case study sites in Sweden. • The full sustainability assessment leads to decision support outcomes which balance trade-offs. • Sustainability assessment accounts for key aspects that may be missed with other assessment approaches. GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT abstract article info Article history: Received 17 November 2017 Received in revised form 9 February 2018 Accepted 10 February 2018 Available online xxxx Editor: Holden Decision support tools (DST) are often used in remediation projects to aid in the complex decision on how best to remediate a contaminated site. In recent years, the sustainable remediation concept has brought increased atten- tion to the often-overlooked contradictory effects of site remediation, with a number of sustainability assessment tools now available. The aim of the present study is twofold: (1) to demonstrate how and when different assess- ment views affect the decision support outcome on remediation alternatives in a DST, and (2) to demonstrate the contribution of a full sustainability assessment. The SCORE tool was used in the analysis; it is based on a holistic multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach, assessing sustainability in three dimensions: environmental, social, and economic. Four assessment scenarios, compared to a full sustainability assessment, were considered to reflect different possible assessment views; considering public and private problem owner perspectives, as well as green and traditional assessment scopes. Four real case study sites in Sweden were analyzed. The results show that the decision support outcome from a full sustainability assessment most often differs to that of other assessment views, and results in remediation alternatives which balance trade-offs in most of the scenarios. In relation to the public perspective and traditional scope, which is seen to lead to the most extensive and expensive remediation alternatives, the trade-off is related to less contaminant removal in favour of reduced negative sec- ondary effects such as emissions and waste disposal. Compared to the private perspective, associated with the lowest cost alternatives, the trade-off is higher costs, but more positive environmental and social effects. Gener- ally, both the green and traditional assessment scopes miss out on relevant social and local environmental sec- ondary effects which may ultimately be very important for the actual decision in a remediation project. © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Keywords: Sustainable remediation Sustainability assessment Decision support tool Contaminated site remediation Green remediation Science of the Total Environment 630 (2018) 103–116 ⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: robert.anderson@chalmers.se (R. Anderson), jenny.norrman@chalmers.se (J. Norrman), par-erik.back@swedgeo.se (P.-E. Back), tore.soderqvist@anthesisgroup.com (T. Söderqvist), lars.rosen@chalmers.se (L. Rosén). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.120 0048-9697/© 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Science of the Total Environment journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv