Next Article in Journal
Electrostatic Field for Positive Lightning Impulse Breakdown Voltage in Sphere-to-Plane Air Gaps Using Machine Learning
Previous Article in Journal
Hydrous Pyrolysis of Source Rocks with Different Maturity in Dongying Sag, Bohai Bay Basin, China: Implications for Shale Oil Exploration and Development
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 16
Issue 17
10.3390/en16176218
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Brownfields, Environmental Stability and Renewable Energy: Pathways to Overcome the Imperfection of Cumulative Effect Assessment

by
Andrei Mikhailovich Dregulo
1,2
1
Herzen State Pedagogical University of Russia, 48 Moika Embankment, Saint-Petersburg 191186, Russia
2
Institute for Problems of Regional Economics RAS, 38 Serpukhovskaya, Saint-Petersburg 190013, Russia
Energies 2023, 16(17), 6218; https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176218
Submission received: 18 May 2023 / Revised: 25 July 2023 / Accepted: 24 August 2023 / Published: 27 August 2023
(This article belongs to the Section B: Energy and Environment)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Brownfields or objects of accumulated environmental damage are a complex object characterized by both the absorption and release of uncontrolled energy (for example, biogas or hydrothermal energy). The brownfield redevelopment process provides unique opportunities to ensure efficient energy transfer and maintain environmental stability. However, the implementation of these solutions depends on the quality of the assessment of the cumulative impact of unspent deposits, namely, the assessment of the damage caused to the environment, which, in turn, gives an understanding of how to ensure the elimination of damage to energy efficiency and environmental safety from uncontrolled carbon dioxide emissions. In this article, we consider the problems of assessing the cumulative effect of waste management activities, as a result of which abandoned deposits or objects of accumulated environmental damage appear. A cycle of measures to achieve socio-economic efficiency through the re-development of brownfields and their integration within energy-efficient systems and environmentally balanced systems is proposed, and a new concept of identifying the negative occurrence of brownfields under the influence of climate change is substantiated. Particularly, we assess the possibilities of integrating brownfields or objects of accumulated environmental damage into energy-efficient and environmentally balanced systems for goals of sustainable development.

1. Introduction

The existence of energy-efficient systems (EESs) and environmentally balanced systems (EBSs) depends on various aspects of economic development. Focused attention on the development of EESs and EBSs involves a reassessment of the internal reserves of urbanized territories, in particular, in solving the problems of brownfields redevelopment. However, an underestimated aspect of solving this problem is the integration of “brownfields” as energy-efficient systems. Previously, brownfields were understood as “abandoned deposits” of minerals, unused land or destroyed buildings [1,2]. Over time, the term “brownfields” became more universal, and a wide range of objects began to be understood by it. Some examples of brownfields—literal definitions—are as follows:
-
“Brownfield” is defined as abandoned, vacant, derelict, idle or underutilized industrial or commercial property in the urban area with an active potential for redevelopment, where redevelopment is complicated by real or perceived environmental contamination, building deterioration/obsolescence and/or inadequate infrastructure [3];
-
“Brownfields sites are smaller parcels of land with smaller amounts of contamination that are redeveloped by parties seeking for economic benefit” [4];
-
“A brownfield is a property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant” [5].
As can be seen from these examples, a common characteristic of brownfields is the “abandonment” (or absence of any activity on the land) of contaminated land that can be cleaned and used for commercial gain. In practice, a wide range of various types of objects falls under the definition of brownfields, including industrial facilities, mining facilities, linear objects (highways, overpasses, municipal infrastructure, agricultural land, ruined objects, landfills and much more).
However, brownfields are not just land or infrastructure facilities; they are also a source of absorption or release of heat (energy) affecting the EESs and EBSs.
In particular, brownfields can be subject to long-term greenhouse gas emissions and, consequently, have a cumulative negative effect. And, therefore, it is necessary to review all human activities on Earth in order to move from excessive to moderate consumption, for a comfortable coexistence of man (economic activity, use of ecosystem services) and nature [6]. In 2021, the UN announced the next decade of ecosystem restoration worldwide [7].
Many tend to believe that an energy-efficient and environmentally balanced transition is a large-scale event that requires interdisciplinary scientific approaches that consider regional ecological and geographical features of the landscape [8]. This became more evident after the publication of the assessment of UN action strategies to combat climate change for 2018–2021 [9] and the signing of the framework Convention in Glasgow in 2021, which did not seem very ambitious [10]. Climatic conditions of a particular region often exacerbate the socio-economic risks, decreasing the quality of life due to deterioration of the environmental situation, especially among the low-income population [11]. This is compounded by the fact that many people with low incomes (or socially unprotected segments of society) live in or near degraded territories [12]. As a result, slums appear [13]. For example, slums, which have arisen near landfills, are already becoming an integral part of the urban landscape. Probably due to the ecological inequality of the population, geographical (landscape) aspects of urbanization are becoming more and more relevant [14,15]. Life in the urban periphery (for example, among landfills or wastelands) is often burdened for the poor by the lack of electricity and heat [16].
Meanwhile, brownfields as degraded lands are losing carbon (reducing sequestration), thereby increasing its concentration in the atmosphere. This problem is not only environmental, but also related to energy (as an element of the transition to energy efficiency, which is often underestimated), which, in turn, does not ensure the effectiveness of the transition to carbon neutrality. Nevertheless, a number of experts believe that when solving social problems, the problems of environmental restoration are often ignored [17]. The aim of this study is to study and identify weaknesses in the practice of brownfields cumulative effects assessment (CEA) for the formation of new (additional) evaluation criteria that contribute to the unification and optimization of CEA for the integration of brownfields into EESs and EBSs.

2. Materials and Methods

The research scenario contains the author’s alternative descriptions of the problem based on the analysis of the guiding international documents, as well as on the authoritative opinion of specialists and scientists (based on the materials published by them), who are experts in the field of cumulative effects assessment and renewable energy with sustainable land use. When preparing separate sections of the article, the stock materials of the Institute for Problems of Regional Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences were used.
To determine the prospects for achieving energy efficiency and environmental stability in brownfields redevelopment based on the study of CEA practices, we proposed 6 sections for a better understanding of the problem: (1) International experience in eliminating AED; (2) Imperfection of cumulative effects assessment in international practice; (3) Problems of assessment of cumulative effects and elimination of brownfields (AED) in Russia; (4) The specifics of brownfields (AED) processes as an object of CEA research; (5) The concept of improving the SEA to overcome the problems associated with brownfields or AED to achieve EESs and EBSs; (6) Opportunities integration of brownfields into energy-efficient and environmentally balanced systems as goal sustainable development. This made it possible to identify factors that have a cumulative impact on the redevelopment of brownfields, which should be considered (avoided) when implementing CEA for the integration of brownfields as energy-efficient and environmentally balanced systems.
To formalize the data, the guidelines for reporting on the main types of PRISMA studies were used (http://prisma-statement.org), which were partially modified by the author, namely, an associative method was added to the methodological apparatus of the study—it consists of studying an object with similar properties and the method of paired comparisons, which allow comparing alternatives to one solution in order to study the most preferred options for the development of events.

3. Results

3.1. International Experience in the Elimination of Brownfields as Accumulated Environmental Damage

The global transformation of the economy, the growth of urban processes and the consumption of natural resources have caused large-scale effects: objects of accumulated environmental damage (AED). Often, AED arises as a result of industrial activities, agricultural activities, mining, waste disposal, etc. Degradation of the landscape due to the emergence of AED affects the interaction of material economic flows (Figure 1).
To a large extent, this influence is associated with the problems of the consumption of certain types of services (in particular, related to the formation and disposal of waste), which, in turn, leads not only to a violation of the assimilation potential of the environment, but also to a decrease in the quality of life of the population living near brownfields or AED objects [18]. One of the most notable steps towards correcting the mistakes of post-industrial society was the “Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980” (CERCLA) adopted in 1980 in the USA [19]. This law and the subsequent amendments to it in 1986 (SARA) made it possible to identify the most significant problems in the implementation of the “Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act” (SARA) [20].
Despite the fact that the program has achieved some positive results, the path from identifying environmental damage to restoring degraded lands is very cumbersome and does not lead to rapid elimination of negative consequences and risks to public health [21]. Therefore, the risks of the occurrence of dangerous phenomena associated with brownfields or AEDs should not only be optimally studied and prevented, information on the implementation of such measures should be objective and accessible to civil society (possibly in the form of a national register of objects of AED).
Informing the public about decisions taken regarding hazardous waste disposal sites and associated risks (a practice used in the United States under the Superfund program) has reduced the environmental impact of pollutants and negative health effects. However, as Hoover 2017 notes [22], despite the various methods of communication with the population in America, this is not enough, due to the fact that few studies are devoted to the unforeseen consequences of environmental risks and the public’s reaction to them, and, consequently, the assessment and discussion of cumulative effects will not give the expected result, not to mention the fact that men and women have different assessments of the danger from environmental consequences, for example, for reproductive health [23]. In 2009, the US Environmental Protection Agency reported that facilities included in the list of new facilities more than 20 years ago remain at various stages of liquidation, restoration and localization. As of December 2009, 340 out of 1270 objects were removed from the list (eliminated), and 63 new objects were added [24]. At the beginning of 2022, there were 1322 AED objects in the USA, 447 of which have been removed, and 51 more objects have been added [25]. In the European Union countries, intensive scientific research related to AED began in 2000, in connection with the implementation of the provisions of the directive “On Responsibility for the State of the Environment” [26]. In 2006, the Policy Document of the Commission of the European Communities [27] noted that the number of potentially contaminated sites had reached 3.5–4 million units. The number of AED objects that have caused the degradation of the landscape varies from several hundred to hundreds of thousands in different locations [28]. The costs of land restoration are an additional burden on all citizens, and not only on direct land users, which also generates social discontent. This results in a discrepancy with the basic international “the polluter pays” principle [26], i.e., “everyone pays” for violations of the polluter. For EC25, the total costs of restoring degraded lands from various economic activities (agriculture, tourism, industry, etc.) amount to EUR 38 billion per year [29].

3.2. Imperfection Cumulative Effect Assessment in International Practice

To identify and systematize socio-economic and environmental problems of economic activity, a set of measures is used to determine “cumulative effects impacts” (CEIs) [30,31,32,33,34] or the cumulative environmental impact (CEI) [35]. Many issues related to environmental impact assessment (EIA) are regulated by both international environmental standards and regional standards. For example, in India, the law abolished the requirement for a preliminary environmental permit for construction [36], and soil conservation measures in China led to a decrease in the safety of water resources [37]. This is probably why there are calls to abandon universal measures of sustainable land management that do not sufficiently consider biophysical processes in the landscape, focusing on the creation of multifunctional land use systems [38].
Despite the fact that various approaches to cumulative effect assessment (CEA) improvement have been used for several decades, issues related to environmental harm, accumulated as a result of economic activity (including transboundary pollution transfer), are often colored by the political context [39] and, therefore, are always debatable in approaches to the implementation of CEA in a specific territory, i.e., in accordance with national standards. Approaches to the CEA are also criticized for a number of other reasons, ranging from criticism of the “causal relationships” of the ESPON TIA manual [40] to allegations of non-compliance of the CEA with the quality of impact assessment worldwide [41]. The most difficult criteria for the CEA are the lack of clear rules for its implementation [42].
To a large extent, the quality of the CEA depends on the qualifications of specialists. For example, Canter and Ross [43] found 8 terrible, 8 bad and 12 useful examples of CEA, which could be used to formulate optimal principles of CEA practice. Of course, there are other completely different examples related to landscape degradation; some of them are shown in Table 1.
These examples show how different problems of landscape degradation can be, and, accordingly, show the ways to solve them should be different. Most likely, whoever is not engaged in a critical review of CEA practices, looking for positive and negative sides, may face the fact that the result, although true, will be subjective, specific for a particular project. Nevertheless, it is clear from these examples that the provision of information, its processing and discussion for making adequate decisions are a key stage of the CEA [49]. However, there are precedents for purposefully silencing the problem or avoiding its critical discussion [50], which violates basic human rights to ecological safety. All this indicates that in international practice, approaches to assessing the occurrence of brownfields or AED are not only conceptually different, but also not optimal from the point of view of obtaining comprehensive information for quantitative and qualitative assessment, and are largely due to the political context and economic opportunities.

3.3. Problems of Assessment of Cumulative Effects and Elimination of Brownfields (AED Objects) in Russia

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the investment downturn and the slow development of the economy became the main sources of the appearance of new economic development facilities in Russia. In 2002, the World Bank, after its own research on the state of the Russian environmental assessment system, emphasized that the CEA in Russia is not effective because it does not have a well-established operating system for environmental quality management [51]. The 2010 World Bank Group report noted that activities for the localization brownfields (AED objects) in the Russian Federation necessitate an appropriate environmental assessment, both in relation to the situation under consideration and the approach to its solution [52]. In 2013, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted a federal program (Elimination of accumulated environmental damage for 2014–2025), which emphasized that [53]:
“The intensive socio-economic development of the country in the previous period, the processes of intensive industrialization and extensive extraction of natural resources, the density of industrial production, a high degree of depreciation of fixed assets, technological backwardness, the accumulation of pollutants mainly in soils (lands), taking into account biogeochemical processes and depositing properties of the specified natural object, as well as a significant number of ownerless or economically unattractive assets characterized by a high degree of pollution, as a result of large-scale privatization in the 90s of the accumulated century, they became the main causes of accumulated environmental damage. As a result, about 31.6 billion tons of waste have been accumulated in the Russian Federation to date, 2–2.3 of which are toxic. These objects occupy significant areas, hazardous chemicals enter groundwater, which leads to contamination of surface and underground water bodies, including water supply sources, and to disruption of the geochemical balance of territories.”
In the short period of time that has passed since the actualization of the AED problem in the Russian Federation, various definitions (more than 10) of this concept have been proposed. Their essence boils down to the economic side—as “harm” that has been inflicted on the environment, which is expressed in monetary terms, and the fact of the negative impact of past economic activity has been called “accumulated environmental damage”. In Russian practice, the concept of AED is an “integral” characteristic of harm (it does not matter what caused it), in contrast to the foreign practice of allocating categories of economic activity, as a result of which damage was caused (be it agricultural activity, tourism, industry, etc.). At the beginning of 2022 in the Russian Federation, 442 objects were entered in the register of AED objects of different levels of danger (harm/damage), which occupy an area of more than 4200 km2. The number of the population living in territories burdened with negative impacts due to the location of new economic development facilities is more than 126 million people (~87.6% of the total population of the Russian Federation in 2022). Criteria for categorizing objects where accumulated environmental damage is to be eliminated as a matter of priority are as follows:
  • Criterion 1—volume of pollutants—is estimated depending on the volume of the component of the natural environment and the content of pollutants that exceeds the established value of the environmental quality standard;
  • Criterion 2—volume of disposed production and consumption waste of a specific hazard class;
  • Criterion 3—area (aquatic area) exposed to negative effects (on which the object of AED is located);
  • Criterion 4—level and volume of negative impact on the environment—is assessed depending on the excess of the maximum permissible concentrations of chemicals (hereinafter, MPCs) contained in the water bodies, atmospheric air, and soil;
  • Criterion 5—exposure of AED to hazardous substances specified in international treaties, to which the Russian Federation is a party;
  • Criterion 6—amount of the population living in the territory where the environment is negatively affected by AED;
  • Criterion 7—number of people living in the territory where the environment is under the threat of negative impact due to the location of AED;
  • Criterion N—total impact is determined by AED, summing the obtained values of criteria 1–7.
Experts have made a distinction between environmental “harm” and environmental “damage”. “Harm” is violations in the natural environment associated with economic activity, and “damage” is the cost of eliminating/minimizing “harm”. In accordance with (Federal law of 10.01.2002 No. 7-FZ “On environmental protection”) [54], “accumulated environmental damage” means damage to the environment caused as a result of past economic and other activities, where obligations to eliminate it have not been fulfilled or have not been fully fulfilled. “Objects of accumulated environmental damage” refers to territories where environmental damage has accumulated, e.g., capital construction facilities and waste disposal facilities that are the source of accumulated environmental damage. Both of these terms are inherently very similar to the international classification of degraded lands [55]. In our opinion, the weak side of understanding (definitions), in both cases, the AED is that it does not reveal the reasons for the fundamental factor of the appearance of the AED object. It is obvious that the criteria for categorizing the objects of AED do not reveal the specifics of the “cause-effect” process of AED itself, but only fixes the situation that has developed at this point in time. The specificity, in this case, lies in the combination of factors that contributed to the degradation of the landscape and associated “natural and technical objects” (NTOs).
The NTO is understood as a set of technical devices and elements of the natural environment interacting with them, which, in the course of joint operation, ensures, on the one hand, high production and other targets, and on the other hand, maintaining a favorable environmental situation in its zone of influence, the maximum possible conservation and reproduction of natural resources in each case. It is the “specifics” of the targeted use of any NTO object and its interaction with the landscape components that gives an understanding of the conditions for preventing the appearance of AED [56].

4. Discussion

4.1. The Specifics of Brownfields (AED) Processes as an Object of CEA

The conducted studies [57] show that environmental pollution due to improper waste management is a global problem not only for developing countries, but also for countries with a high level of economy that affects the adequacy of the CEA. As we noted earlier, the “classical” approaches to CEA with a certain list of pollutants are not suitable to give an objective result, i.e., to reflect the specifics. Given the progress in the field of genome sequencing technologies, which allows a different look at various problems of landscape degradation, it is necessary to expand the CEA criteria [58,59,60,61,62].
We are inclined to believe that the specifics in this case should be considered through a breakthrough in genomic research, which has become the determining or dominant factor in studying the degradation of components of the natural environment and the transformation of the landscape. The “revolution” in molecular microbiology, namely, bacterial genome sequencing, occurred more than 25 years ago [63,64]. Advances in soil microbial ecology are becoming increasingly available [65]. Today, we can receive information about “hidden negative impacts” that could not be identified several decades ago.
“Hidden negative impacts” mean the transformation of pollutants from low-hazard to highly hazardous forms, the migration of which in the landscape cannot be identified using only “classical” research methods and a list of normalized substances. In other words, for each specific project, the CEA assessment should not be carried out according to predefined parameters (a regulatory list of pollutants), but rather according to new, potential, unexplored, natural and anthropogenic processes, possibly as a logical abstraction of a wide range of negative processes, when one specific cause of a negative effect generates one or more negative effects, often having a synergistic effect and leading to subsequent effects, but also generating other effects, the consequences of which have not been studied, and they are difficult to reveal (Figure 2).
A comprehensive look at the “microbiological” life cycle of landfills convincingly proves this [66]. The increased moisture content is a favorable environment for methanogenesis [67] and for the process of mercury methylation [68], the release of landfill (greenhouse) gases after prolonged stabilization of waste [69] containing methylmercury [70]. An example is the occurrence of “Minamata disease”, the first foci of which were discovered in 1956 [71,72], which eloquently indicates that estimates of the negative impact of a pulp and paper mill dumping mercury-containing wastewater into Minamata Bay were insufficient.
However, mechanisms of mercury methylation became known in the 1960s and 1970s [73]. The level of scientific research at that time could not consider that mercury methylation is due to the presence of certain genes of microorganisms found both in the marine environment and in soils, and even more so in landfills, the structure of which, depending on waste disposal, can give a different effect of mercury methylation. Genetic studies of the microbiome of landfill waste in Japan have shown that the HgCA gene, which promotes mercury methylation, was present in the upper and lower layers of waste [74].
The danger lies in the leaching of methylmercury (MeHg) with surface runoff or landfill filtrate and it getting into reservoirs. Studies [75] confirm that the population is exposed to MeHg along the food chain, mainly through consumption of infected fish and marine mammals, and rice grown on contaminated terrariums. However, the bioavailability of MeHg in fish is significantly higher than in rice, and, therefore, special attention should be paid when assessing the risks of the influence of surface runoff filtrate from landfills to fisheries reservoirs. Another important aspect is the global understanding of the importance of soil microbial consortia in the removal of PAHs, BPS, BPF, crude oil, pyrene, DBP, DOP, TPHP, PHs, butane, DON, TC and heavy metals [76]. This will allow developing new CEA strategies by adapting and combining soil remediation technologies, making it less costly using various phytoremediants [77].
However, we understand that along with the prospects of using scientific achievements, the role of the competent CEA model also increases due to the fact that an outstanding amount of genetic data on the functions, composition and dynamics of soil fauna does not provide exhaustive information [78]. The example with MeHg (which we have emphasized in this paragraph) convincingly shows that we are not yet competent enough in microbial ecology to give exhaustive assessments of the processes taking place in the landscape and further consequences. Of course, there can be a great many similar examples, but today, hardly anyone will doubt that the inclusion of modern scientific achievements (including remote sensing [79] and modeling of climatic processes [80]) to assess the degradation of the landscape and create competent models of the CEA is extremely necessary to develop.

4.2. The Concept of Improving the CEA to Overcome the Problems Associated with Brownfields or AED to Achieve EESs and EBSs

To overcome the problems associated with the integration of brownfields/AED into EESs and ESBs, it is necessary to start with the fact that ecological systems of the landscape are formed in different climatic conditions of the earth and react differently to anthropogenic interference [81]. This is one of the good reasons why some researchers focus on the practice of regional SEA for optimal territorial development and restoration of degraded territories [82,83,84]. In this study, we are also of the opinion that the practice of SEA (local/regional) can be useful, namely, if it has a sufficient proportion of universal performance criteria (UPC) within a single process to achieve the effectiveness of CEA, which can optimize pathways to achieve EESs and EBSs (Figure 3).
We consider UPC as a cycle of measures to achieve socio-economic efficiency through redevelopment of brownfields and their integration (EESs and EBSs), which is divided into several stages:
  • The first stage is obtaining information. The information should be open, firstly, to inform the public and interested persons about the fact of the CEA, its goals and objectives; secondly, to develop and independently assess models for predicting negative impacts and calculating the costs of their elimination.
  • The second stage is that sufficient funding and interdisciplinary research are the key to obtaining comprehensive information. Therefore, from the point of view of obtaining information, it is very important to carefully plan the budget of the CEA project at the initial stage. The professional level of the experts involved and quantitative and qualitative assessments of the results of field research will depend on this.
  • The third stage is the cooperation of stakeholders (government, science, business, population). At this stage, a plan is being developed for the further use of territories (for example, changing the functional use of territories—residential, industrial, etc.), the presentation of the business project to stakeholders and public discussion.
  • The fourth stage is the management of the CEA project. At this stage, planned activities are being implemented to achieve this goal.
  • The fifth stage is improvement performance evaluation is carried out. At this stage, an assessment of all previous stages of the implementation of a particular project is carried out, weaknesses and strengths of the project are identified, and information is provided about the implementation of the project and ways to improve it.
Researchers of the history and practice of the CEA agree that during the CEA, attention should be focused on the dominant (or most vulnerable and probably easily assessable) stress factors of the components of the natural environment [85]. Obtaining information that gives an idea of the dominant factors (i.e., the “specifics” that we talked about above) is, in our opinion, the most difficult stage of the CEA.
In particular, these factors are understood as the influence of solar energy, winds and precipitation, which caused the appearance of brownfields or AED, but at the same time, have an important impact on the re-development of brownfields or AED when they are integrated into the energy management system (energy infrastructure facilities) to achieve EESs and EBSs. Taking this into account, we propose a proven concept of identifying AED factors for optimizing CEA, the essence of which is to identify “ecodiagnostics”, general and particular factors affecting the processes of degradation of the landscape and associated infrastructure of the NTO on the principle of “fundamentals-standard-practice” (Figure 4):
This concept involves the following:
  • identification—a set of measures aimed at identifying factors of influence external to the studied object, the changes of which in space and time (including those related to their legal regulation) determine the reduction (loss) of the effectiveness of the operational and environmental properties of the studied object;
  • ecodiagnostics—identification and study of signs characterizing the current and expected state of the environment, ecosystems and landscapes, as well as the development of methods and means for detecting, preventing and eliminating negative environmental phenomena and processes.
The principle of “fundamentality-standard-practice” is fundamental for solving the problems of rational nature management and constructing a scenario for the CEA. Since the negative aspects of landscape degradation will be specific, due to the specifics of the interaction (coevolution) of natural (climate, soil types, hydrochemical regime of groundwater, etc.) and man-made (engineering structures; man-made flows, for example, from waste processing/disposal, etc.) systems, for a comprehensive CEA, it will have to find both common features, characteristic for any AED objects, and private ones. In particular, fundamental factors of the degradation process are understood to be the influence of climate, since all PTOs have a certain dependence on the influence of the natural environment. Specific (standard and practice) factors are understood as their production specifics.
The nature of research suggests an approach to the study of the object of research as a thing “in itself”. This allows for studying the subject remaining within the categories inherent in the typical studied NTO. For example, the operation of a waste disposal facility (landfills, sludge storage, manure storage, silt sites, etc.) implies the implementation of environmental protection measures when handling waste with a complex physico-chemical composition (geoengineering protection, sanitary and technical standards of operation, etc.). The functioning of a waste management facility depends on regional geoecological aspects and is, therefore, regulated by regulatory national standards of operation. Our previous studies have shown that these two important aspects (the influence of climate and regulatory standards for the operation of NTOs) have a direct impact on the formation of anthropogenic impacts [86,87,88] enhanced by the ecology of microorganisms in the presence of pollutants [89]. In other words, the specific factors that need to be identified for the identification and ecodiagnostics of AED depend on the specifics of the functioning of the NTO.
The approach proposed by us suggests considering the AED not as a regulatory template, “territories with a certain list of pollutants identified in fact”, but as “a complex natural and technical process as a result of which damage to the environment was intentionally or unintentionally caused.” In this case, we propose to consider the “AED object” as a “NTO” that has lost its functional purpose due to the direct or indirect impact of certain (general and particular) factors mutually conditioned by the intended use of this object, reflecting its natural and economic specifics, entailing a negative impact on the environment. Using this concept in practice has helped not only to diagnose environmental damage, but also to propose a new environmentally and economically acceptable low-carbon (solar) method of waste disposal [90], which is certainly an important criterion for the effectiveness of CEA. In our opinion, this approach is universal for any NTO, which opens up the prospect of a qualitatively different CEA practice and allows us to uncover the fundamental causes of AED.

5. Opportunities Integration of Brownfields into Energy-Efficient and Environmentally Balanced Systems as Goal Sustainable Development

In the previous sections, we have shown that brownfields or AED objects are very diverse. Therefore, for each individual case of brownfield redevelopment and integration of this object into the urban economic space in accordance with the selected new target function, it should be determined from the point of view of its energy efficiency and environmental safety. However, with the existing proven and seemingly proven ways to redevelop brownfields into energy-efficient systems, there are a number of socio-economic factors constraining the transition to renewable energy: investments in infrastructure, logistics, taxation and others [91]. At the same time, the integration of brownfields into the urban economy should implement sustainable development strategies that are aimed at overcoming these constraints. In accordance with the sustainable development goals (SDGs), brownfield re-development can reach its optimum by implementing SDGs 7,9,13 and 17 (Figure 5).
The proposed options for the SDGs are certainly not exhaustive, because the thoughtful redevelopment of brownfields shows a multiplicative effect. Nevertheless, we consider very important and, at the same time, controversial issues raised by the UN as Sustainable Development Goals in the context of energy efficiency. In particular, this is SDG 7—the transition to clean or “green” energy. Brownfields re-development can be through the introduction of alternative types of energy supply—solar panels or wind generators. However, this option of restoring brownfields to achieve SDG 7 for commercial initiatives is possible partly due to the high cost of infrastructure and maintenance costs. The most promising goals achieved during brownfield redevelopment are (1) SDG 13—reduction of the negative impact on the climate from greenhouse gases (for example, landfills) or low sequestration of disturbed land, which increases the problems of uncontrolled emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and (2) SDG 9—adaptation of brownfield territories for new construction. The implementation of measures to eliminate the environmental damage caused by brownfields and the restoration of the natural environment to achieve SDG 9 topics is possible if brownfields are integrated into EES and EBS stability.

Integration of Brownfields or AED into EES and EBS Stability

The redevelopment of brownfields in the context of the energy transition is important both from the point of view of environmental safety and meeting the expectations of the community for these events. Brownfields are characterized by varying degrees of contamination with various pollutants. Heavy metal pollution is the most common.
For brownfields contaminated with heavy metals, it is advisable to combine methods of phytoremediation (using higher plants to remove heavy mobile metals by the root system of plants) and bioenergy (after restoration of lands, use biomass as a renewable energy source) [92], for example, poplars [93], which, after phytoremediation, can be used to produce biodiesel for jet engines [94], including thermochemical methods of processing biomass into electricity [95,96]. The energy efficiency of the brownfield phytoremediation also has a multiplicative effect, which consists of reducing urban (anthropogenic) heat and sequestration of CO2 [97]. Schematically, this is shown in Figure 6.
Brownfields can be integrated into the energy network of suburban areas with the help of geothermal heat pumps that allow obtaining geothermal heat [98]. In an arid climate, the integration of brownfields into the energy system can be carried out by the placement of solar panels [99]. For remote brownfield territories (which are not agricultural lands), their integration and redevelopment is possible for the development of wind energy. For brownfields such as landfills or degraded sewage treatment plants, it is advisable to recover secondary energy resources (biogas) by using electric generators or technologies for collecting and liquefying biogas. Obtaining energy as a secondary resource during the redevelopment of lands contaminated by waste is possible using the potential of bacteria (composting, etc.). Another example is post-socialist countries, where many agricultural lands have been degraded; these territories are used for the production of renewable energy using photoelectric installations [100]. Thus, the integration of brownfields or AED into the energy system (the choice of redevelopment design) can be optimally implemented only by correct cumulative effect assessment.

6. Conclusions

The system of environmental licensing of planned activities is often carried out with a departmental bias, relying mainly on technical “narrowly focused” standards, which do not allow identifying the synergetic effect of economic activity and do not reveal the true complexity of the brownfield impact on the environment. The present study has shown that approaches to CEA should not be “dogmatized”. In order to ensure the optimal quality of CEA when identifying new ones, it is necessary to identify common degradation factors using modern achievements of science and technology. The most important condition is the information that is the basis for the use of universal and inseparable criteria (UPC) within a single process to achieve the effectiveness of the CEA. We proposed the concept of improving the CEA by using UPC within the framework of a single process, “information-financing-interdisciplinarity-cooperation-management-improvement”, to achieve the effectiveness of the CEA with a deeper justification of geoecological factors associated with the functional transformation of the landscape and related infrastructure elements based on the principle from the section “fundamentals-standard-practice”. All this will allow the development of abandoned deposits not only for the purpose of restoring land, but also for (1) achieving low-carbon neutrality and (2) obtaining renewable energy as the optimal way to achieve energy efficiency and environmental stability.

Funding

This research was funded by the Russian Science Foundation No 23-27-00034, https://rscf.ru/project/23-27-00034/.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zheng, B.; Masrabaye, F. Sustainable brownfield redevelopment and planning: Bibliometric and visual analysis. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Turečková, K.; Martinát, S.; Nevima, J.; Varadzin, F. The Impact of Brownfields on Residential Property Values in Post-Industrial Communities: A Study from the Eastern Part of the Czech Republic. Land 2022, 11, 804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Brownfield Redevelopment Strategy. Available online: https://niagarafalls.ca/pdf/business/cip/brownfield/brownfield-redevelopment-strategy.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  4. Brownfields Redevelopment A Guidebook for Local Governments and Communities—Second Edition. Available online: https://www.cdfa.net/cdfa/cdfaweb.nsf/ord/201407BFRedevGuide072005.html/$file/Brownfields_Redevelopment.pdf (accessed on 20 July 2023).
  5. Overview of EPA’s Brownfields Program. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/brownfields/overview-epas-brownfields-program (accessed on 21 July 2023).
  6. Global Sustainable Development Report the Future is Now—Science for Achieving Sustainable Development. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/24797GSDR_report_2019.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2023).
  7. UNESCO’S, Evaluation of UNESCO’S Strategy for Action on Climate Change (2018–2021). Available online: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000378455/PDF/378455eng.pdf.multi (accessed on 5 February 2023).
  8. Edrisi, S.A.; Abhilash, P.C. Need of transdisciplinary research for accelerating land restoration during the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration. Restor. Ecol. 2021, 29, e13531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. UNESCO’S, 2021. Principles for Ecosystem Restoration to Guide the United Nations Decade 2021–2030. Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/cb6591en/cb6591en.pdf (accessed on 5 February 2023).
  10. COP26: Key Outcomes from the UN Climate Talks in Glasgow. Available online: https://www.wri.org/insights/cop26-key-outcomes-un-climate-talks-glasgow (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  11. Ganzleben, C.; Kazmierczak, A. Leaving no One Behind—Understanding Environmental Inequality in Europe. Environ. Health 2020, 19, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Gerber, N.; Nkonya, E.; von Braun, J. Land Degradation, Poverty and Marginality. In Marginality; Von Braun, J., Gatzweiler, F., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  13. Shibata, T.; Wilson, J.L.; Watson, L.M.; Nikitin, I.V.; La Ane, R.; Maidin, A. Life in a landfill slum, children’s health, and the Millennium Development Goals. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 536, 408–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Bai, X.; McPhearson, T.; Cleugh, H.; Nagendra, H.; Tong, X.; Zhu, T.; Zhu, Y.-G. Linking Urbanization and the Environment: Conceptual and Empirical Advances. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2017, 42, 215–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Kuddus, M.A.; Tynan, E.; McBryde, E. Urbanization: A problem for the rich and the poor? Public Health Rev. 2020, 41, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Singh, R.; Wang, X.; Mendoza, J.C.; Ackom, E.K. Electricity (in)accessibility to the urban poor in developing countries. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Energy Environ. 2014, 4, 339–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cortina-Segarra, J.; García-Sánchez, I.; Grace, M.; Andrés, P.; Baker, S.; Bullock, C.; Decleer, K.; Dicks, L.V.; Fisher, J.L.; Frouz, J.; et al. Barriers to ecological restoration in Europe: Expert perspectives. Restor. Ecol. 2021, 29, e13346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Njoku, P.O.; Edokpayi, J.N.; Odiyo, J.O. Health and Environmental Risks of Residents Living Close to a Landfill: A Case Study of Thohoyandou Landfill, Limpopo Province, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Federal Facilities. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/enforcement/comprehensive-environmental-response-compensation-and-liability-act-cercla-and-federal (accessed on 25 March 2023).
  20. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA). Available online: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-amendments-and-reauthorization-act-sara (accessed on 25 March 2023).
  21. Lioy, P.J.; Burkeb, T. Superfund: Is it safe to go home? J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2010, 20, 113–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Hoover, A.G. Sensemaking, stakeholder discord, and long-term risk communication at a US Superfund site. Rev. Environ. Health 2017, 32, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Shepherd, A.; Jepson, R.; Watterson, A.; Evans, J.M.M. Risk Perceptions of Environmental Hazards and Human Reproduction: A Community-Based Survey. ISRN Public Health 2012, 2012, 748080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. US Environmental Protection Agency. National Priorities List, 28 December 2009. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/index.htm (accessed on 9 February 2023).
  25. Superfund: National Priorities List (NPL). Available online: https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-national-priorities-list-npl (accessed on 2 April 2023).
  26. Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council, 21 April 2004-«Environmental Liability Directive». Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/liability/index.htm (accessed on 8 March 2023).
  27. Soil Thematic Strategy, COM (2006) 231. Available online: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52006DC0231&from=EN (accessed on 2 April 2023).
  28. Van Liedekerke, M.; Prokop, G.; Rabl-Berger, S.; Kibblewhite, M.; Geertrui, L. Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe; Report EUR 26376 EN; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  29. Montanarella, L. Trends in Land Degradation in Europe. In Climate and Land Degradation; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 83–104. [Google Scholar]
  30. Clark, R. Cumulative effects assessment: A tool for sustainable development. Impact Assess. 1994, 12, 319–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Piper, J.M. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Project Clusters: A Comparison of Process and Methods in Four UK Cases. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2001, 44, 357–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piper, J.M. CEA and sustainable development. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2002, 22, 17–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Smit, B.; Spaling, H. Methods for cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 1995, 15, 81–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dubé, M.; Johnson, B.; Dunn, G.; Culp, J.; Cash, K.; Munkittrick, K.; Storey, A. Development of a New Approach to Cumulative Effects Assessment: A Northern River Ecosystem Example. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2006, 113, 87–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Foley, M.M.; Mease, L.A.; Martone, R.G.; Prahler, E.E.; Morrison, T.H.; Murray, C.C.; Wojcik, D. The challenges and opportunities in cumulative effects assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 62, 122–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Runge, K. The Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Impacts in EIA and Land-Use Planning. In Urban Ecology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; pp. 433–437. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jolly, S.; Singh, S. Environmental Impact Assessment Draft Notification 2020, India: A Critique. Chin. J. Environ. Law 2021, 5, 11–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zhang, L.; Feger, K.H.; Schwärzel, K. Large-scale soil conservation measures contribute to water insecurity in NW China. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly 2014, Vienna, Austria, 27–30 April 2014; Volume 16. [Google Scholar]
  39. Zhang, L.; Schwärzel, K. China’s Land Resources Dilemma: Problems, Outcomes, and Options for Sustainable Land Restoration. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Mitchell, R.B. International environmental agreements: A Survey of Their Features, Formation, and Effects. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 2003, 28, 429–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Perdicoúlis, A.; Batista, L.; Pinho, P. Logical chains in territorial impact assessment. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 57, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Bidstrup, M.; Kørnøv, L.; Partidário, M.R. Cumulative effects in strategic environmental assessment: The influence of plan boundaries. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2016, 57, 151–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Roudgarmi, P. Cumulative Effects Assessment (CEA), A Review. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2018, 20, 1850008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Canter, L.; Ross, B. State of practice of cumulative effects assessment and management: The good, the bad and the ugly. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2010, 28, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Baxter, W.; Ross, W.A.; Spaling, H. Improving the practice of cumulative effects assessment in Canada. Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2001, 19, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ball, M.A.; Noble, B.F.; Dubé, M.G. Valued ecosystem components for watershed cumulative effects: An analysis of environmental impact assessments in the South Saskatchewan River watershed, Canada. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2012, 9, 469–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Larsen, R.K.; Raitio, K.; Stinnerbom, M.; Wik-Karlsson, J. Sami-state collaboration in the governance of cumulative effects assessment: A critical action research approach. Environ. Impact Assess. Rev. 2017, 64, 67–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Piet, G.J.; Jongbloed, R.H.; Tamis, J.E.; de Vries, P. Improving CEA: Moving from expert judgement to more quantitative approaches. In Proceedings of the ICES Annual Science Conference 2018, Hamburg, Germany, 24–27 September 2018. [Google Scholar]
  49. Mokany, K.; Harwood, T.D.; Ferrier, S. Improving links between environmental accounting and scenario-based cumulative impact assessment for better-informed biodiversity decisions. J. Appl. Ecol. 2019, 56, 2732–2741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jones, F.C. Cumulative effects assessment: Theoretical underpinnings and big problems. Environ. Rev. 2016, 24, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Stubenvoll, M.; Neureiter, A. Fight or Flight: How Advertising for Air Travel Triggers Moral Disengagement. Environ. Commun. 2021, 15, 765–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. World Bank Group. How Well is Environmental Assessment Working in Russia: A Pilot Study to Assess the Capacity of Russia’s System. 2003. Available online: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/707731468776123161/pdf/288080ENGLISH0RU0EA1Report01PUBLIC1.pdf (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  53. World Bank Group. Russia—Addressing Past Environmental Liabilities Project. 2010. Available online: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/439871468092959163/Russia-Addressing-Past-Environmental-Liabilities-Project (accessed on 21 January 2023).
  54. Ministry of Natural Resources and Ecology of the Russian Federation. Elimination of Accumulated Environmental Damage for 2014–2025. Available online: https://programs.gov.ru/Portal/programs/passport/12 (accessed on 2 March 2023).
  55. Federal Law of 10.01.2002 № 7-FZ “On Environmental Protection”. Russian Federation (National Level). Available online: https://www.fao.org/faolex/results/details/en/c/LEX-FAOC05275 (accessed on 10 March 2023).
  56. Young, A. Land Degradation in South Asia: Its Severity, Causes and Effects Upon the People World soil resources reports. Food Agric. Organ. United Nations 1994, 78, 100. [Google Scholar]
  57. Dregulo, A.M.; Khodachek, A.M. Waste Management Reform in Regions of The Russian Federation: Implementation Issues on The Way to Sustainable Development. Geogr. Environ. Sustain. 2022, 15, 6–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Ferronato, N.; Torretta, V. Waste Mismanagement in Developing Countries: A Review of Global Issues. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Maretto, L.; Deb, S.; Ravi, S.; Chiodi, C.; Manfredi, P.; Squartini, A.; Concheri, G.; Renella, G.; Stevanato, P. Microbial Diversity of Reconstituted, Degraded, and Agricultural Soils Assessed by 16S rDNA Multi-Amplicon Sequencing. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 9, 807889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Kuzyakov, Y.; Zhan, P.; Wang, Q.; Hettenhausen, C.; Xiao, D.; Qi, J.; Zhang, Z. Differentiating microbial taxonomic and functional responses to physical disturbance in bulk and rhizosphere soils. Land Degrad. Dev. 2020, 31, 2858–2871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. McLachlan, M.S.; Kierkegaard, A.; Radke, M.; Sobek, A.; Malmvärn, A.; Alsberg, T.; Arnot, J.; Brown, T.N.; Wania, F.; Breivik, K.; et al. Using Model-Based Screening to Help Discover Unknown Environmental Contaminants. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 7264–7271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Pourchet, M.; Debrauwer, L.; Klanova, J.; Price, E.J.; Covaci, A.; Caballero-Casero, N.; Antignac, J.-P. Suspect and non-targeted screening of chemicals of emerging concern for human biomonitoring, environmental health studies and support to risk assessment: From promises to challenges and harmonisation issues. Environ. Int. 2020, 139, 105545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Fleischmann, R.D.; Adams, M.D.; White, O.; Clayton, R.A.; Kirkness, E.F.; Kerlavage, A.R.; Bult, C.J.; Tomb, J.F.; Dougherty, B.A.; Merrick, J.M. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 1995, 269, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Maloy, S.; Schaechter, M. The era of microbiology: A golden phoenix. Int. Microbiol. Span. Soc. Microbiol. 2006, 9, 1. [Google Scholar]
  65. Pérez-Cobas, A.E.; Gomez-Valero, L.; Buchrieser, C. Metagenomic approaches in microbial ecology: An update on whole-genome and marker gene sequencing analyses. Microb. Genom. 2020, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Meyer-Dombard, D.R.; Bogner, J.E.; Malas, J. A Review of Landfill Microbiology and Ecology: A Call for Modernization With “Next Generation” Technology. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Gurijala, K.R.; Suflita, J.M. Environmental factors influencing methanogenesis from refuse in landfill samples. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1993, 27, 1176–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. O’Concubhair, R.; O’Sullivan, D.; Sodeau, J.R. Dark Oxidation of Dissolved Gaseous Mercury in Polar Ice Mimics. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 4829–4836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Li, Z.G.; Feng, X.; Li, P.; Liang, L.; Tang, S.L.; Wang, S.-F.; Fu, X.W.; Qiu, G.L.; Shang, L.H. Emissions of air-borne mercury from five municipal solid waste landfills in Guiyang and Wuhan, China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2010, 10, 3353–3364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Feng, X.; Shunlin, T.; Zhonggen, L.; Shaofeng, W.; Lian, L. Landfill is an important at-mospheric mercury emission source. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2004, 49, 2068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Harada, M. Minamata disease: Methylmercury poisoning in Japan caused by environmental pollution. Crit. Rev. Toxicol. 1995, 25, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Ninomiya, T.; Ohmori, H.; Hashimoto, K.; Tsuruta, K.; Ekino, S. Expansion of Methylmercury Poisoning Outside of Minamata: An Epidemiological Study on Chronic Methylmercury Poisoning outside of Minamata. Environ. Res. 1995, 70, 47–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Segade, S.; Dias, T.; Ramalhosa, E. Mercury methylation versus demethylation: Main processes involved. In Methylmercury: Formation, Sources and Health Effects; Clampet, A.P., Ed.; Nova Science Publishers: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 123–166. [Google Scholar]
  74. Yang, J.; Takaoka, M.; Sano, A.; Matsuyama, A.; Yanase, R. Vertical Distribution of Total Mercury and Mercury Methylation in a Landfill Site in Japan. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gong, Y.; Nunes, L.M.; Greenfield, B.K.; Qin, Z.; Yang, Q.; Huang, L.; Bu, W.; Zhong, H. Bioaccessibility-corrected risk assessment of urban dietary methylmercury exposure via fish and rice consumption in China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 630, 222–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Zhang, T.; Zhang, H. Microbial Consortia Are Needed to Degrade Soil Pollutants. Microorganisms 2022, 10, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Ayub, M.A.; Usman, M.; Faiz, T.; Umair, M.; ul Haq, M.A.; Rizwan, M.; Ali, S.; Zia ur Rehman, M. Restoration of Degraded Soil for Sustainable Agriculture. In Soil Health Restoration and Management; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 31–81. [Google Scholar]
  78. Shrinivas, N.S.; Padmaja, P.S.; Krishnaraj, P.U. Soil Metagenomics: Concepts and Applications. In Metagenomics—Basics, Methods and Applications; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020; 162p. [Google Scholar]
  79. Rizzi, J.; Tarquis, A.M.; Gobin, A.; Semenov, M.; Zhao, W.; Tarolli, P. Preface: Remote sensing, modelling-based hazard and risk assessment, and management of agro-forested ecosystems. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 2021, 21, 3873–3877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Schewe, J.; Gosling, S.N.; Reyer, C.; Zhao, F.; Ciais, P.; Elliott, J.; Francois, L.; Huber, V.; Lotze, K.H.; Seneviratne, S.I.; et al. State-of-the-art global models underestimate impacts from climate extremes. Nat. Commun. 2019, 10, 1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chu, E.W.; Karr, J.R. Environmental Impact: Concept, Consequences, Measurement. In Reference Module in the Life Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  82. Gunn, J.H.; Noble, B.F. A conceptual basis and methodological framework for regional strategic environmental assessment (R-SEA). Impact Assess. Proj. Apprais. 2009, 27, 258–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ren, H.; Shen, W.-J.; Lu, H.-F.; Wen, X.-Y.; Jian, S.-G. Degraded ecosystems in China: Status, causes, and restoration efforts. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2007, 3, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Rodionov, V.Z.; Dregulo, A.M.; Kudryavtsev, A.V. Anthropogenic impact on the ecological state of rivers in the Leningrad region. Water Ecol. 2019, 24, 96–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Blakley, J.; Russell, J. International progress in cumulative effects assessment: A review of academic literature 2008–2018. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2021, 65, 186–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Dregulo, A.M. Identification and prediction of climatic loads for design and operation of drying beds. Water Ecol. 2019, 24, 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Dregulo, A.; Bobylev, N. Integrated Assessment of Groundwater Pollution from the Landfill of Sewage Sludge. J. Ecol. Eng. 2021, 22, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Dregulo, A.; Bobylev, N. Heavy Metals and Arsenic Soil Contamination Resulting from Wastewater Sludge Urban Landfill Disposal. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2021, 30, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Dregulo, A.M.; Shapkin, V.M.; Kichko, A.A. Microbial analysis of sewage sludge shows closer monitoring needed for landfill waste. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Waste Resour. Manag. 2022, 175, 57–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Dregulo, A.M. Climate-neutral waste management in The Russian Federation: New approach to sludge treatment on drying beds under climate change. J. Water Land Dev. 2022, 52, 95–100. [Google Scholar]
  91. Spiess, T.; De Sousa, C. Barriers to Renewable Energy Development on Brownfields. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 2016, 18, 507–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Guidi Nissim, W.; Labrecque, M. Reclamation of urban brownfields through phytoremediation: Implications for building sustainable and resilient towns. Urban For. Urban Green. 2021, 65, 127364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zalesny, R.S.J.; Headlee, W.L.; Gopalakrishnan, G.; Bauer, E.O.; Hall, R.B.; Hazel, D.W.; Isebrands, J.G.; Licht, L.A.; Negri, M.C.; Guthrie Nichols, E.; et al. Ecosystem services of poplar at longterm phytoremediation sites in the Midwest and Southeast, United States. WIREs Energy Environ. 2019, 8, e349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Seufitelli, G.V.S.; El-Husseini, H.; Pascoli, D.U.; Bura, R.; Gustafson, R. Techno-economic analysis of an integrated biorefinery to convert poplar into jet fuel, xylitol, and formic acid. Biotechnol. Biofuels Bioprod. 2022, 15, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Verma, S.; Dregulo, A.M.; Kumar, V.; Bhargava, P.C.; Khan, N.; Singh, A.; Sun, X.; Sindhu, R.; Binod, P.; Zhang, Z.; et al. Reaction engineering during biomass gasification and conversion to energy. Energy 2023, 266, 126458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Ding, Z.; Sanjeev, K.A.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, V.; Dregulo, A.M.; Yadav, V.; Sindhu, R.; Binod, P.; Sarsaiya, S.; Pandey, A.; et al. A thermo-chemical and biotechnological approaches for bamboo waste recycling and conversion to value added product: Towards a zero-waste biorefinery and circular bioeconomy. Fuel 2023, 333, 126469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Guidi Nissim, W.; Castiglione, S.; Guarino, F.; Pastore, M.C.; Labra, M. Beyond Cleansing: Ecosystem Services Related to Phytoremediation. Plants 2023, 12, 1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Donaldson, R.; Lord, R. Can brownfield land be reused for ground source heating to alleviate fuel poverty? Renew. Energy 2018, 116, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Klusáček, P.; Havlíček, M.; Dvořák, P.; Kunc, J.; Martinát, S.; Tonev, P. From Wasted Land to Megawatts: How to Convert Brownfields into Solar Power Plants (the Case of the Czech Republic). Acta Univ. Agric. Et Silvic. Mendel. Brun. 2014, 62, 517–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Navrátil, J.; Martinát, S.; Krejčí, T.; Klusáček, P.; Hewitt, R.J. Conversion of Post-Socialist Agricultural Premises as a Chance for Renewable Energy Production. Photovoltaics or Biogas Plants? Energies 2021, 14, 7164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 16 06218 g001
Figure 1. Interaction of economy and environment, considering the influence of brownfields (or AED objects) in the chain of main material flows (W—primary waste; RPNE—Recovery potential of natural environment).
Figure 1. Interaction of economy and environment, considering the influence of brownfields (or AED objects) in the chain of main material flows (W—primary waste; RPNE—Recovery potential of natural environment).
Energies 16 06218 g001
Energies 16 06218 g002
Figure 2. The causal relationship of the occurrence of AED.
Figure 2. The causal relationship of the occurrence of AED.
Energies 16 06218 g002
Energies 16 06218 g003
Figure 3. Universal performance criteria (UPC) for EESs and EBSs.
Figure 3. Universal performance criteria (UPC) for EESs and EBSs.
Energies 16 06218 g003
Energies 16 06218 g004
Figure 4. The concept of CEA improvement for identifying AED factors to optimize pathways to achieve EESs and EBSs.
Figure 4. The concept of CEA improvement for identifying AED factors to optimize pathways to achieve EESs and EBSs.
Energies 16 06218 g004
Energies 16 06218 g005
Figure 5. Integrating brownfields into energy redevelopment strategies optimizes pathways to achieve EESs and EBSs.
Figure 5. Integrating brownfields into energy redevelopment strategies optimizes pathways to achieve EESs and EBSs.
Energies 16 06218 g005
Energies 16 06218 g006
Figure 6. Effect of phytoremediation of brownfields (AED objects) for low-carbon, EES and EBS stability.
Figure 6. Effect of phytoremediation of brownfields (AED objects) for low-carbon, EES and EBS stability.
Energies 16 06218 g006
Table 1. Some examples related to the implementation of CEA for brownfield or AED objects.
Table 1. Some examples related to the implementation of CEA for brownfield or AED objects.
Objects CEADisadvantagesWhat Needs to Be Improved?References
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) documentation of various levels (municipal, regional, federal), for which CEA was requiredThe CEA does not differ sufficiently from the EIA;
Inadequate definition of CEA scales;
The analysis of cumulative effects and follow-up measures are weak		Considerations in terms of reference;
Use context scoping;
Use more follow-up studies; Link project and regional CEA		[44]
Ecosystem Components for Watershed Cumulative Effects
(W-CEA)		Lack of public discussion and exchange of information; Restrictive regulatory requirements affecting the choice of ecosystem components and indicatorsDevelopment of a standardized terminology structure for priority components and indicators of W-CEA assessment parameters[45]
Cooperation between the indigenous peoples of Sweden and the Swedish State authorities, and the Sami reindeer herding communities in the field of CEA management for mining projectsManagerial barriers of the state in the interests of businessStructural changes to overcome inequality between the State and indigenous peoples; State policy to protect the interests of indigenous peoples[46]
Human activities, Pressures and Impacts in the Eastern North SeaSemi-quantitative scores from expert judgmentInclusion of quantitative information on risks to the population[47]
CEA for making more informed decisions in the field of biodiversityLack of a universal approach to the assessment of various indicators of biodiversitySynthesis of environmental accounting and based on CEA scenarios[48]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dregulo, A.M. Brownfields, Environmental Stability and Renewable Energy: Pathways to Overcome the Imperfection of Cumulative Effect Assessment. Energies 2023, 16, 6218. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176218

AMA Style

Dregulo AM. Brownfields, Environmental Stability and Renewable Energy: Pathways to Overcome the Imperfection of Cumulative Effect Assessment. Energies. 2023; 16(17):6218. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176218

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dregulo, Andrei Mikhailovich. 2023. "Brownfields, Environmental Stability and Renewable Energy: Pathways to Overcome the Imperfection of Cumulative Effect Assessment" Energies 16, no. 17: 6218. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16176218

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop