Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management

Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Research article

Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management Jussi Reinikainen a, *, Jaana Sorvari b, Sarianne Tikkanen a a b

Finnish Environment Institute SYKE, P.O. Box 140, FI-00251, Helsinki, Finland Aalto University, School of Engineering, P.O. Box 12100, FI-00076, Aalto, Finland

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 22 December 2015 Received in revised form 8 August 2016 Accepted 15 August 2016 Available online xxx

The importance of sustainability considerations in contaminated land management (CLM) is highlighted in policy frameworks all around the world. It means that while the reduction of risks to human health and the environment remains the main goal of CLM, a variety of other environmental factors as well as economic and social aspects have an increasing role in decision making. The success of finding the right balance between these considerations and incorporating them in the risk management approach defines the overall sustainability of the outcome. Although the concept and principles of sustainable CLM are already widely accepted, they have not been fully realized in national procedures. According to several studies this often results from the lack of explicit policy measures. A sound policy framework in conjunction with functional policy instruments is therefore a prerequisite for the attainment of sustainable practices. In Finland, the environmental administration along with other key stakeholder groups, including regional authorities, landowners, consultants, industries, research institutes and academia, has developed a national strategy and associated policy measures in order to promote sustainable CLM. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Risk management Sustainable remediation Policy instrument Strategy Guidelines Finland

1. Introduction The number of potentially contaminated sites solely in Europe totals around 2.5 million of which about 340 000 sites are expected to be contaminated, and hence likely to require remedial actions (van Liedekerke et al., 2014). The annual estimated cost of these actions is around 6 billion euros (Panagos et al., 2013). In Finland, the national soil database includes information on some 19 600 contaminated or potentially contaminated sites (Ministry of the Environment, 2015). This number excludes some 5400 sites that have already been remediated to acceptable risk levels or confirmed being uncontaminated without a need to remediate due to low levels of chemical concentrations or risks. Although most of the potentially contaminated sites have not yet been investigated, i.e. the suspicion of contamination results solely from the known historical or present activities at those sites, roughly half of them (i.e. about 10 000 sites) can be expected to require remediation based on the national statistics regarding the investigated and

* Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: Jussi.Reinikainen@ymparisto.fi (J. Reinikainen), Jaana.Sorvari@ aalto.fi (J. Sorvari), Sarianne.Tikkanen@ymparisto.fi (S. Tikkanen).

remediated sites (Ministry of the Environment, 2015). The extent of the global contamination problem has resulted in the development of national policy frameworks and various policy measures and instruments, including inventories, regulations, guidelines, and funding mechanisms that aim at the systematic and efficient management of contaminated land. Within the evolution of national and international policies the initial contaminated land management (CLM) approach of multifunctional land use with low tolerance of risk and the consequent exhaustive remediation has been replaced by the concepts of risk-based and sustainable land management (Vegter et al., 2002). The most recent focus in the field of regulatory policies with regard to CLM has been on sustainable remediation, whose philosophy strongly relies on the risk-based land management. The concept and its practical implications have been addressed in various guidance documents, policy papers, and case-studies worldwide (Pollard et al., 2004; U.S. EPA, 2008; Ellis and Hadley, 2009; CL:AIRE, 2010; USACE, 2010; ITRC, 2011; Nadebaum, 2011). As a result, generic considerations of sustainability are widely adopted in the national CLM policy frameworks in many countries in Europe and North-America as well as in Australia and New Zealand.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046 0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

2

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

Most of the international work and the associated literature and policies in the context of sustainable remediation deal with the appraisal of sustainability, focusing on the methods and indicators. However, according to a recent study by Hou et al. (2014), the most significant current barriers to sustainable remediation are not related to sustainability appraisal but the lack of regulatory requirements, client demand and economic considerations. This result is based on an extensive questionnaire study among various stakeholders in the US and UK. Since the previous surveys in the US (e.g. Ellis and Hadley, 2009) present similar conclusions, the impression of the inadequacy of policy measures seems to remain unchanged in spite of the evident progress in the CLM policies and practices over the same period. Although the perception of the relevance of various barriers obviously differs between countries and stakeholder groups (Bardos et al., 2011; Rizzo et al., 2015), the studies clearly imply that the lack of specific policy instruments may impede sustainable remediation even in countries with otherwise well-developed policies and regulatory frameworks. This is the case also in Finland where lack of clear guidelines, e.g. on the reuse of contaminated soil, has been considered one of the key issues (Sorvari et al., 2009). It therefore seems evident that the practitioners and decision makers need unequivocal policy measures to fully incorporate sustainability into their risk management practices. On the other hand, before such measures can be fully implemented in the policy frameworks, we must have a common understanding of what we mean with the sustainable CLM practice and how the trade-offs between sustainability principles and userrequirements can be successfully integrated (Bartke and Schwarze, 2015). In Finland, several policy measures and instruments were recently issued or are currently being prepared to promote more efficient, systematic and sustainable CLM practices. This paper discusses (Section 5) two important policy measures in terms of how they are designed to address and support sustainability in the Finnish policy context concerning CLM. These measures are: 1) guidelines on sustainable remediation, and 2) national risk management strategy for contaminated land. We also provide an overview to the current CLM policy and practice in Finland (Section 4) for better understanding of the rationale behind these policy measures. Additionally, we give a brief introduction to the more general aspects of sustainable remediation (Section 3) and policymaking in that context (Section 2), and discuss how they are associated with the two above mentioned policy measures (Section 6). The studies referred to in this article were also used as background information for analyzing the policy framework in terms of the national regulatory risk-based approach, which, in fact, is a critical component in sustainable remediation. We present the findings and conclusions related to that analysis, as well as the new policy guidelines issued to promote justified risk-based land management, elsewhere (Reinikainen and Sorvari, 2016). More detailed description of the generic barriers and drivers to sustainable remediation in Finland are presented in Sorvari et al. (2009). 2. Policy-making by government in the context of CLM Governments can use various policy measures and instruments in their attempts to achieve policy goals, in this case sustainable CLM. (e.g. Howlett, 2011; Jordan et al., 2013, 2012). The main categories of instruments for implementing agreed policy goals include regulations, market-based instruments, voluntary approaches, and information measures (Jordan et al., 2013). Russel and Jordan (2014) include also public spending and budgeting, which have an important role especially in the management of

orphan sites in CLM. However, before choosing instruments for policy implementation, governments need to decide on policy goals, i.e. define the concept and principles of sustainable CLM in this case. In Finland this was made by making a national CLM strategy, which we will discuss in Section 5.2. In the policy-making process many factors need to be considered. These involve clear and consistent policy objectives, reliable information, political and technical feasibility, capacity of implementation structures, and active stakeholder engagement (Howlett and Ramesh, 1995; Reed, 2008). Howlett (2011) highlights the use of policy formulation tools (e.g. Dunn, 2004; de Ridder et al., 2007; Jordan and Turnpenny, 2015) in exploring the various alternatives available for addressing the problem. Some of these tools emphasize stakeholder engagement and participation in order to attract different values, arguments, evidence and opinions in the process. Moreover, stakeholder engagement, as part of the social element, is commonly acknowledged as an integral part of sustainability and the optimal application of sustainable remediation strategies (CL:AIRE, 2010; Bartke and Schwarze, 2015). Stakeholder engagement also ensures transparency that is a requirement for truly sustainable decision making (Bardos et al., 2011). The authors feel that the government and its organizations, including environmental administration, have a moral obligation to promote practices that contribute to a beneficial social change such as sustainable development. In the context of CLM this means that the public policy should advance the attainment of sustainable risk management and remediation practices through necessary policy measures, such as removing regulatory barriers and providing targeted policy instruments. 3. Sustainability in CLM 3.1. Starting points for risk management Decision making and regulatory policies on contaminated land are commonly governed by chemical risks and their site-specific assessment. Risk assessment, therefore, has to comply with the regulatory requirements, but also provide valid information in terms of actual risks to correctly allocate any risk management measures and resources (Reinikainen and Sorvari, 2016). Hence, reliable risk assessment that relies on ‘sourceepathwayereceptor’ pollutant linkage and the integration of health and environmental considerations is the most essential prerequisite for implementing appropriate risk management actions, such as remediation (U.S. EPA, 1998; Nathanail and Bardos, 2004; Suter et al., 2006). The principles of risk assessment in the policy context of CLM are described in numerous publications both internationally (e.g. Ferguson et al., 1998; Vegter et al., 2002) and in Finland (Reinikainen et al., 2014; Reinikainen and Sorvari, 2016). In addition to achieving the required level of risk reduction and environmental protection, several additional aspects affect the decision making on a specific site. Such aspects are also heavily depended on the motives of the stakeholders involved. These often relate to the prospects and threats regarding future land use, such as the possibilities of site redevelopment or the potential long-term liabilities, and the consequent economic and social uncertainties that the site owners or developers might experience (Sorvari, 2010; €dler et al., 2012). Such factors often have a direct influence on Scha the selection of the risk management approach and the desired level of remediation, with a tendency to doing more than required solely from the viewpoint of risks (Bartke, 2011). In addition, practical constraints, such as a lack of feasible remediation methods, difficult environmental conditions, and spatial or temporal restrictions might play an important role in the selection of the CLM approach. At the same time, when the objectives of CLM

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

are considered at the strategic level from regional or national perspective instead of a single site or site owner, decision making is always governed by broader policy issues such as the generation of waste, climate change or the consumption and reuse of natural resources (see Fig. 1). 3.2. Concept of sustainable remediation Despite the variation in the national definitions and procedures regarding sustainable CLM, most of the policy approaches in different developed countries, including Finland, are roughly based on the principles presented by the UK Sustainable Remediation Forum (SuRF-UK). SuRF-UK defines sustainable remediation as “the practice of demonstrating, in terms of environmental, economic and social indicators, that the benefit of undertaking remediation is greater than its impact and that the optimum remediation solution is selected through the use of a balanced decision-making process” (CL:AIRE, 2010). The key message in this definition is that although the ultimate objective of site remediation is to reduce the risks of contamination to human health and the environment to an acceptable level, it should be realized that remedial actions could also cause negative impacts, which, in some cases, may even exceed those caused by contamination. The inclusion of sustainability approach in the selection, design and implementation of remediation activities on a specific site provides an opportunity to integrate multidimensional, i.e. environmental, economic and social, considerations in the decision making process to gain maximum net-benefits (Holland et al., 2011). At the strategic level, these considerations include issues such as the conservation of soil and land as resources, reducing the pressure for taking over greenfield areas by brownfield regeneration, diminishing waste generation, and minimizing the carbon footprint and energy consumption (e.g. Pollard et al., 2004; Bardos et al., 2011). The inclusion of such issues in the policy instruments that also govern site-specific decision making (e.g. guidelines on sustainable remediation) is a challenge since sustainability

3

considerations do not necessarily correlate at the different levels of decision making. This means that what seems to be sustainable at site level, may not be regarded as sustainable at regional level (see Section 6). In the Finnish CLM policy context, sustainable remediation focuses on the selection of the most appropriate remediation techniques and optimization of their implementation at site level when risk assessment or other considerations already confirmed the need for remediation, and the initial technical evaluation of potential methods has been carried out. Sustainable risk management, on the other hand, covers all the measures for managing risks on a single site but also at the other stages and levels of decision making, such as regional land use planning. The latter, wider perspective is included in the definition of sustainable remediation in some other frameworks (e.g. CL:AIRE, 2010). 4. Material and methods 4.1. Survey on the policy instruments Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) has carried out several studies during the last few years in order to evaluate the functionality of the national policy framework. These have included surveys on databases and literature, questionnaires, and seminars, €€ among other things (e.g. M€ aenpa a, 2002; Jaakkonen, 2008; Sorvari et al., 2009; Pyy et al., 2013). Documentation from these studies provided us with the information on the need for policy instruments to promote sustainable CLM. 4.2. Study on current remediation drivers and practices To evaluate the challenges and possibilities for promoting sustainability by policy instruments, it is important to know the actual reasons for launching a remediation project. In Finland, an approval for remediation from the competent authority is required. The approval is given in an administrative decision that is usually based

Fig. 1. Different factors and stakeholders involved in the decision making of contaminated land management. Modified from Sorvari (2010).

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

4

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

a notification system. Therefore, a separate survey was made regarding the site-specific administrative decisions on remediation projects issued in 2014. Besides identifying the current main drivers for remedial activities, this survey also identified the remediation techniques and the numeric remediation targets adopted. These data complemented the information on the past and present CLM practices compiled from the sources presented in Section 4.1. The material consisted solely of the authorities' decisions, and thus excluded other information sources such as the original notifications or the more detailed consultants' reports regarding a remediation project, i.e. the remediation plan and the documentation after the finalization of the work. Therefore, the data did not provide us with clear justifications for the selected remediation approaches or demonstrate whether the actual remediation actions were carried out in accordance with the decisions. It was also difficult to separate the drivers to starting the project (i.e. site investigation stage) from the drivers to actual remediation. Despite these shortcomings, this survey could be used either to verify or discard our perceptions on the past and current CLM practices. 4.3. Results from the surveys 4.3.1. National level policy support to sustainable CLM In Finland, the risk management of contaminated land is governed by a rigid regulatory framework. The main legislative instrument within the context is the Environmental Protection Act (EPA 527/2014) that integrates the regulation of environmental contamination under one law. Moreover, the general purpose of the EPA is to promote sustainable development within the policy and practice. Hence, the specific objectives of the EPA include preventing and managing contamination, advancing sustainable use of natural resources, preventing climate change, ensuring healthy and diverse environment, supporting comprehensive impact assessments, and improving stakeholder engagement. The EPA also includes generic principles for sustainable environmental practice, such as the precautionary and ‘polluter pays’ principles, and the principle of using the best available technique (BAT). In addition to the provisions in the EPA, a mandatory risk assessment protocol is integrated into the regulatory framework by a Government Decree (214/2007) and its associated guidelines (Reinikainen et al., 2014). Based on these regulatory instruments, a justified site-specific risk assessment shall always be used for determining soil contamination, remediation need, and target levels of remediation, providing thus a sound starting point for sustainable risk management. The Decree also presents three

categories of risk-based soil screening values, namely threshold value and the lower and upper guideline value. The threshold value is a mandatory trigger value that indicates the need for a sitespecific risk assessment and also defines uncontaminated soil, alongside the background concentration if this exceeds the threshold value. The lower and upper guideline values refer to potentially significant concentrations in residential and industrial areas, respectively, and can be used to determine whether soil remediation is required or not. However, unlike the threshold value, the guideline values are not legally binding decision benchmarks meaning that the site-specific assessment is always prioritized. Some sector-specific legislation, such as the Waste Act (636/ 2011) and the Land Use and Building Act (132/1999) also support the attainment of sustainable CLM. For example, while the Waste Act primarily aims at reducing the amount and harmfulness of waste and the associated environmental effects in waste management in general, it also tries to promote the sustainable use of natural resources. The obligation to comply with the principle of waste hierarchy further complements the general objectives by prioritizing the reduction and reuse of waste instead of disposal. The Land Use and Building Act, on the other hand, aims to ensure that the use of land areas and building activities on them create preconditions for a good living environment, and promote ecologically, economically and socially sustainable development, enabling also public participation in the planning process. Regardless of the unambiguous regulatory objectives on sustainable development and the general principles of sustainable practice embedded in the legislation, exact provisions or obligations with regard to sustainable CLM do not exist in the Finnish regulatory framework, requirements on site-specific risk assessment being the only exception. 4.3.2. Reasons for remediation In Finland, the drivers to CLM actions at a specific site are usually linked to the specific activities on it, rather than its contamination. Such activities typically include land redevelopment, construction works, and closedown of operations, which are often interconnected and therefore not always specifically indicated in administrative decisions. Many sites have also been remediated within the two national programmes, known as SOILI and JASKA, for the remediation of sites contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons (see Section 4.3.4). These “non-risk-based” factors have been the primary motives for investigations and remediation in around 80% of the cases during the past ten years (Fig. 2). According to the surveys, the risk-based remediation needs, as

Fig. 2. Reasons for site remediation in Finland (n ¼ the number of cases each year). The data from the years 2005e2011 are from Pyy et al. (2013).

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

well as remediation targets, are mostly based on the generic soil guideline values. Based on the data from 2014, only 13 decisions out of 241 included truly site-specifically derived remediation targets. Corresponding outcomes from the previous years' surveys demonstrate that the soil guideline values are, in fact, used as target levels repeatedly in up to 95% of the soil remediation projects, although they should not be used for that purpose without sitespecific considerations (Reinikainen, 2007). The administrative decisions also confirm that site-specific remediation actions in Finland are mainly targeted to contaminated soil, and not to groundwater. For example, in 2014, only eight decisions out of 241 included references to groundwater treatment. 4.3.3. Remediation techniques and soil reuse According to the surveys, excavation, and off-site treatment of excavated soils is the most common remediation method in Finland. In situ treatment of soil, mainly biostimulation, was mentioned as a primary method in 16 decisions out of 241 decisions surveyed in 2014. However, the majority of these projects also included some excavation with a few additional references to isolation, soil vapor extraction and chemical oxidation. Eight projects also run groundwater cleanup actions by pump and treat or biological in situ treatment as an additional risk management method, i.e. in addition to soil remediation. As remediation in Finland is largely based on soil excavation, most of the projects also involve the management of extracted soils. It is generally acceptable to reuse excavated soils within the boundaries of the site under remediation, whereas the use of excavated contaminated soil in other areas calls for an environmental permit. Excess soils that cannot be used on site are usually transported to off-site treatment facilities, such as landfills or specific dumpsites for uncontaminated soils. Here, uncontaminated soil refers to soil where concentrations of all contaminants are below the corresponding lower guideline values. Roughly 1e1.5 million tons of excavated contaminated soils are annually delivered to such facilities. According to a survey by Jaakkonen (2008), the off-site treatment of contaminated soils mostly involves their reuse in landfill covers and other engineering structures without actual cleanup efforts. Depending on the chemical composition and the contamination level of the soils active treatment methods are sometimes used, such as biological and thermal treatment, stabilization, isolation, soil vapor extraction, and soil washing. 4.3.4. Role of the state in remediation practice So far, about 400 sites have been remediated through the state's waste management funding system that allocates funds for cleanup actions to the regional environmental authorities. During the past few years 10e20 new projects were annually implemented through this system, corresponding less than 10% of the total number of all remediation projects and an average financing of 1.5e3 million euros. The projects forced within the system are sites that are expected to pose significant environmental risks, but which still would not have undergone remediation without the financial support from the state. Thus, they are orphan sites. Unfortunately, the system has not been able to promote systematic identification, investigation and remediation of the sites, and its overall efficiency has clearly diminished in time (Ministry of the Environment, 2015). In addition to the direct state funded remediation, by June 2015 more than 700 sites contaminated by petroleum hydrocarbons have been remediated within the two national remediation programmes known as SOILI (1996e2015) and JASKA (from 2012 onwards). The programmes were launched according to an agreement between the Finnish Petroleum and Biofuels Association and the

5

Ministry of the Environment. Funding for the remediation of sites accepted in SOILI or JASKA is allocated by the state administered Oil Pollution Compensation Fund (Nikunen, 2015).

4.4. Current practices from the viewpoint of sustainability According to the surveys (see Chapter 4.1 and 4.2), the site remediation practice in Finland largely relies on excavation of soil, triggered by operational activities on the sites. If the current, annual number of remediation projects and the consequent average costs are used as such to predict future remediation works, it will take around 100 years to clean up all the remaining 10 000 sites that are expected to require remediation. Money-wise this means total costs of some 4 billion euros (Pyy et al., 2013). Moreover, if the remediation practice will continue to be concentrated in soil excavation and off-site disposal, we can expect to see significant environmental and social consequences as a result of considerable emissions of particles and contaminants to air, high fuel consumption, and decreased road safety, as a result of heavy truck traffic, as well as the extensive use of landfill space and virgin soil materials for backfilling. Hence, despite the current policy framework that supports sustainable CLM at the general level, additional and more targeted policy instruments are obviously needed in order to better incorporate sustainability aspects into remediation actions.

5. Recent and forthcoming policy measures to advance sustainability 5.1. Guidelines on sustainable risk management The Finnish Ministry of the Environment recently issued a new regulatory guidance document for the promotion of justified sitespecific risk assessment and sustainable risk management (Reinikainen et al., 2014). Here, we introduce some of the aspects included in this guidance for promoting the attainment of sustainability in the national CLM practice. We focus on the specific guidelines that define concrete targets for sustainable remediation. The new policy objectives and principles with regard to the risk assessment procedure, including representative sampling, are presented elsewhere (Reinikainen and Sorvari, 2016). According to the new regulatory guidance, sustainability appraisal should always be an integral part of remediation planning alongside inferences arising from risk assessment. The guidance describes methods and indicators for sustainability assessment based on both national (e.g.Sorvari et al., 2009) and international experience (e.g. CL:AIRE, 2009). However, the main focus is not on the tools and indicators for sustainability appraisal, but rather on the process itself. Hence, the guidance aims to describe a pragmatic and transparent analysis that is able to provide all the necessary information for the decision making with appropriate justifications, acknowledging also stakeholders' needs and demands. The new guidance also provides a set of guidelines for defining and promoting sustainability in decision making. These guidelines are issued as generic recommendations on sustainable risk management practice, and thus go beyond the indicators of sustainability. The main objective of the guidelines is to promote sustainable practice even on sites where a site-specific sustainability assessment is not carried out. In addition, the guidelines aim at increasing consistency in decision making. The guidelines were prepared in collaboration between the environmental administration and other stakeholders, taking also into account the prevailing remediation practice. The guidelines cover the following themes:

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

6

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

1. possibilities to promote sustainable CLM in regional land use planning 2. suitability of risk assessment when the final land use is not known in detail 3. timing of remediation with respect to site redevelopment 4. requirements for clean surface soil at sites under redevelopment 5. contaminants of particular concern 6. applicability of in situ and on site techniques 7. reuse potential of excavated soils 8. treatment methods for excavated soils and materials-methods 9. organization of stakeholder participation. Some of the guidelines are very generic and only highlight aspects that shall be taken into account in the decision making process. Such aspects include the prospects of land use planning in the early stages of a project design, evaluation of the possibilities of using in situ techniques and excavated soils, and the requirement for stakeholder engagement. These generic considerations are always essential while striving for sustainability and therefore common to sustainability frameworks worldwide (e.g. Holland et al., 2011; CL:AIRE, 2010). Some other guidelines provide more specific objectives for sustainable remediation. In the latter case, the assessment of sustainability with the required weighting of interest and value judgment is already incorporated into the guidelines. Variable recommendations are given for sites in the built environment and for the redevelopment sites still in a planning phase since this starting point greatly affects the approach to both risk assessment and sustainability appraisal. Contaminant properties have also been considered by issuing different recommendations for metals and organic compounds. Furthermore, remarks on sitespecific factors such as the total volume of contaminants, depth of contamination and pavements, are included in the recommendations in order to ensure the technical and economic feasibility of the risk management measures. Although reliable risk assessment is a precondition to sustainable risk management in general, the guidelines introduce several situations where it actually makes sense, from the viewpoint of sustainability, to abandon site-specific risk assessment and to proceed directly with remediation. One example of this is the recommendation for sufficiently clean top soil, which is often the highest concern in residential areas with potential exposure by children (Jennings, 2013). This recommendation states that representative concentrations in the ‘surface soil’, i.e. the uppermost soil layer to about 0.5e1 m, at a site undergoing redevelopment should be below the threshold values or local background concentrations in residential plots and playgrounds, and below the lower guideline values in other parts of the site. Although the recommendation does not apply to paved sub-areas, e.g. roads and parking lots, or to metals that do not pose risks to human health or other recipients, it can be considered as being conflicting with the risk-based approach. However, this recommendation was considered reasonable since it acknowledges the predefined sustainability considerations, such as elimination of concerns, efficient risk management and unrestricted use of the site in the long-term. Moreover, remediation coupled with redevelopment activities also guarantees the economic feasibility of the actions. Sustainability considerations with value judgment are also incorporated into the guidelines that deal with the contaminants of concern, meaning persistent, bioaccumalative and toxic chemicals (PBT), very persistent and very bioaccumalative substances (vPvB), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and non-aqueous-phase liquids (NAPL). These contaminant-specific recommendations, like the one related to the cleanliness of surface soil, may also include inconsistencies with regard to the outcome of risk assessment.

Nevertheless, they are still considered as promoting sustainability. The recommendation on PBT and vPvB substances involves the greatest value judgment in addressing that within a remediation or construction project such contaminants should primarily be destroyed if their concentrations in soil exceed the upper soil guideline values. Here, the total amounts and the depth of contamination shall be taken into account, too. This recommendation stems from the intrinsic and detrimental properties of PBT and vPvB compounds that are known to cause long-term environmental effects on a global scale. Such effects are often difficult to sufficiently address in site-specific risk assessments, which generally focus on a shorter time period and a spatially restricted area (e.g. Reinikainen et al., 2014). Although the recommendation partly conflicts with the risk-based approach and tends to promote the use of energy intensive treatment technologies, such as thermal treatment, the long-term environmental benefits of such practice are considered to outweigh its negative impacts. Moreover, bearing in mind the components and time frame of sustainability, it is justified to state that this recommendation truly supports the attainment of sustainable CLM. It is also in line with the EU policies and regulations concerning PBT substances (e.g. EC, 2006, 2004; ECHA, 2015). Regarding VOCs in redevelopment sites, the recommendation states that readily volatile compounds should be removed before launching any construction works in those parts where vapor intrusion might become an issue. This recommendation applies also to excavated soils that are to be reused. As for NAPLs, the generic objective is to remove the free phase NAPL. These recommendations should be followed regardless of the results from the site-specific risk assessment. Technical constraints and economic feasibility of remediation shall always be taken into account, though.

5.2. National CLM strategy In addition to guidelines on sustainable risk management, a more comprehensive policy framework for promoting sustainable CLM practice in Finland was deemed necessary already some decade ago (Sorvari et al., 2009). Recently, such a framework was developed in the form of a national risk management strategy (Ministry of the Environment, 2015). The strategy was prepared by a nominated working group that involved and cooperated with various stakeholders, including ministries and other governmental organizations, regional and local authorities, landowners, consultants and contractors, industries, research institutes, and academia. The main policy objective of the strategy is to ensure that significant risks to human health and the environment due to land contamination will be managed in a sustainable way within the next 25 years. This principal goal of the strategy is further divided into six more specific objectives that are connected with required policy measures and instruments (Fig. 3). The strategy serves as a policy framework that encompasses and promotes the development of several targeted policy measures and instruments for attaining the overall goal of the strategy. To tackle the specific barriers to sustainable CLM in the Finnish context as identified and described by Sorvari et al. (2009) such policy measures shall include regulatory and economic instruments, as well as information steering to ensure that the regulators and practitioners actually commit to the policy objectives and eventually enforce the strategy (Jalonen, 2008). Moreover, specific means for policy implementation, such as public funding and interactive management approaches in terms of the realization of sustainable practice are required.

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

7

Fig. 3. Objectives of the Finnish national risk management strategy for contaminated land.

Fig. 4. Policy instruments that support the implementation of the Finnish strategy for contaminated land management.

5.2.1. Supporting instruments and tools Fig. 4 summarizes the various policy instruments and other actions that support the implementation of the CLM strategy. Here, the main policy instrument is the forthcoming national programme for the investigation and remediation of sites prioritized based on the risks they pose. The programme will be prepared during 2016 and it is expected to be launched in 2017. However, the strategy document already describes the starting points, principles and organization of the programme, and estimates its extent. Based on

these estimates the number of risk sites to be remediated within the programme by 2040 totals around 1100 with the total expenditure of 220 million euros. The estimated annual funding required for the realization of the programme is 10e12 million euros, of which roughly 4e5 million euros will be allocated to orphan sites through the state funding system (Ministry of the Environment, 2015). This funding mechanism will also be revised in order to ensure its functionality within the programme. The cost estimates result from the assumption that 50e150 sites will be investigated,

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

8

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

and 35e50 sites remediated annually. A centralized organization for the management of the programme will be nominated as described in the strategy. The main task of the organization will be to implement the progamme and the consequent investigation and remediation efforts on the orphan sites through a reformed state funding system (see Section 4.3.4). The strategy document advances a preparation of such state funding system, and presents prospects of the economic policy instruments that could be incorporated into it (e.g. state subsidies and financial securities), evaluating also their regulatory impacts. The national demonstration project (2016e2018) on contaminated land remediation will support the planning and implementation of the forthcoming remediation programme. This demonstration project is one of the assigned actions related to the spearhead projects in the Finnish Government Programme (Prime Minister's Office Finland, 2015) with five strategic priorities and 26 key initiatives. The demonstration project belongs to the spearhead project under the theme “Breakthrough of a circular economy, improve the quality of waters” that is part of the strategic priority “Bioeconomy and clean solutions” (Prime Minister's Office Finland, 2016). The demonstration project intends to bring together administration, practitioners and technology vendors within specific pilot initiatives designed for the development of innovative remediation techniques. Hence, the project, as most of the other spearhead projects in the Government Programme, promotes evidence-based policy making and interactive governance by integrating policy and practice, whose importance has been acknowledged in other policy frameworks (Davies et al., 1999; Sanderson, 2002). In addition, the demonstration project intends to contribute to the evolution of the business sector in the national CLM context focusing on novel clean tech solutions. In addition to the national programme and demonstration project, the strategy document identifies specific means and recommends actions that are required to attaining the six policy objectives in Fig. 3. Moreover, the strategy document identifies responsible organizations and stakeholder groups that shall carry out the required measures while emphasizing the necessary collaboration between the actors. Though the environmental administration as a key public actor will be responsible for many of the recommended policy measures, such as the national programme, data management systems and administrative practices, the role of the other stakeholder groups,, i.e., local governments, planning authorities; constructor, contractor and consultant companies; and academia, will also stand out. Hence, the strategy itself fulfills the precondition of sustainable decision making by providing a framework for comprehensive stakeholder engagement (Bardos et al., 2011). The strategy document also includes an evaluation of the environmental, economic, administrative, and social impacts regarding the implementation of the strategy by applying the Finnish Ministry of Justice's guidelines on the impact assessment in legislative drafting (Ministry of Justice (2008)). In addition, the strategy document identifies the linkage and synergies of the CLM strategy with other national and international policy objectives and obligations relating, e.g., to soil and water protection, land use and waste management policies, circular economy and clean tech practices, the coherence of public policy-making, and the streamlining of regulations. Moreover, the strategy recognizes the need for systematic follow-up with regard to the implementation of the described measures, and thus presents a set of indicators for such monitoring. 5.2.2. Decree on the reuse of excavated soil from construction sites One of the key regulatory policy instruments by which the strategy proposes to tackle some of the existing administrative

barriers for sustainable soil management is the forthcoming decree on the reuse of soils from construction activities, including remediation. The decree is already being prepared in the Finnish environmental administration in collaboration with the Finnish Transportation Agency, Infra Contractors Association, major consulting companies, and local authorities. The objective of the forthcoming decree is to promote reasonable, but controlled usage of such soils in earth construction by the adoption of a simple notification system that would replace the environmental permit procedure. The scope of the decree will be restricted to predefined construction applications and site conditions with specific requirements. The decree will include environmental acceptability criteria for the leaching of contaminants from soil and quality assurance protocols, including requirements for representative sampling. The construction applications intended to be included in the decree are: - traffic lanes (road structures, berms, slopes etc.) - field structures (parking lots, storage sites, harbours, air ports, sport fields, railway yards) - noise and flood barriers - filling applications (parks, landscaping, filling of excavation pits etc.), and - landfills (surface structures). The soil materials, provisionally included in the decree, cover both contaminated and uncontaminated soils, soils including small amounts of mineral construction waste, such as concrete and bricks, stabilized soils including additives/binders, and sediments when reused on land. With regard to the material properties and the technical and functional specifications needed in the given construction applications, references will be made to the relevant national quality standards and planning instructions issued by the competent organizations such as the Building Information Foundation RTS. 6. Discussion 6.1. Generic considerations on the Finnish policy approach Sustainability as a general objective for environmental decision making is clearly incorporated into the Finnish regulatory framework as described in Section 4.3. Exact requirements with regard to the assessment of sustainability or the implementation of sustainable practices in the context of CLM do not exist, however. In the absence of specific legal requirements, sustainability considerations are currently not systematically included in the decision making processes. However, as desirable as it sounds, enacting a regulatory demand for conducting sustainability appraisal would not necessarily work in practice as such, considering the complexity of the issue, and the national experience gained from the obligatory risk assessment procedure. The latter observation refers to the fact that despite the legal requirements for the sitesspecific assessment of remediation need and target levels, issued almost a decade ago, the risk-based decision making is still mainly founded on the soil guideline values, which are not legally binding. Moreover, in many cases a site-specific risk assessment does not even support their application, which sometimes makes one wonder the justification for conducting such an assessment in the first place (Reinikainen and Sorvari, 2016). Having a consensus on what sustainability actually stands for in the national CLM context is thus a minimum requirement for any regulatory orders regarding sustainability. Therefore, we believe that in the Finnish case it is reasonable to first monitor the implementation of the new guidelines on sustainable risk management (see Section 5.1) and their

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

effect on risk management practices, as well as carefully analyze stakeholders' feedback in terms of their applicability. It is worth mentioning, that these guidelines, for the first time, deliver concrete examples of practices that can generally be considered as sustainable. It needs to be kept in mind that the new guidelines on sustainable risk management are only recommendations and not binding statutes. In addition, they only cover some of the issues involved in the actual decision making situations, and may not always lead to the most sustainable outcome in a given site with specific circumstances. Hence, the assessment of sustainability with site-specific considerations plays an important role in the decision making process. However, a fundamental challenge for the sustainability assessment and the consequent risk management practice that also has direct implications to the development of policy instruments is the fact that the three pillars of sustainability, i.e. environmental, economic and social, are always somewhat €berl et al., 2013; Bartke and conflicting (e.g. Bardos, 2008; Do Schwarze, 2015). As a result, many important aspects in the decision making on CLM actually lead to opposite directions thinking about the attainment of sustainability. Stakeholders' contradictory perspectives and motives further increase the complexity of the issue. Hence, the outcome of a sustainability appraisal, and the stakeholders' perceptions of sustainable practices, is always a trade-off between different values and opinions. Such an aspect may be difficult to address in a single project as well as in policy frameworks where neutrality and equity should be common principles (Bartke and Schwarze, 2015; Bleicher and Groß, 2010; Sch€ adler et al., 2012). For example, a thorough remediation based on excavation may be seen as desirable from the viewpoint of a busy construction schedule, future land use aspects, and site owner's potential future liabilities. Moreover, excavation usually provides problem owners with a somewhat definite outcome in terms of remediation targets and time. However, excavation is not necessarily supported by the risk assessment, and the costs and the overall environmental impacts could be lower if in situ techniques were used instead (Sorvari et al., 2009). On the other hand, while natural attenuation and other in situ methods are often rational options when environmental and economic sustainability are considered, their long time perspective and uncertainties involved may not be acceptable by the site owner due to future land use aspects or operational responsibilities. Inconsistencies may also exist within a single component of sustainability e.g. when the energy consumption and atmospheric emissions related to the thermal treatment of persistent organic compounds in soil are balanced with the environmental benefits of completely destructing such contaminants. In addition, opposite outcomes of sustainability appraisals are characteristic for the assessments designed to represent sustainability at different spatial or temporal scales. This means that what may seem as a sustainable practice at a site or project level in the short-term, does not necessarily appear as sustainable at the regional or national level in the long-term. Due to this fundamental challenge and the recognized need for policy measures, it can be reasonably argued that besides methods and indicators of sustainability assessment, specific decision benchmarks for the actual sustainable remediation practice are required in the policy frameworks worldwide. In addition to the regulatory and methodological issues, several additional factors affect the attainment of sustainable risk management. These factors, too, need to be addressed and tackled in the policy frameworks. Hou et al. (2014) suggest that sustainable remediation is driven by three generic elements; i.e. increased recognition of secondary environmental impacts of remediation, stakeholders' demand for more sustainable practices, and institutional pressure that promotes sustainable practices. In fact, these

9

aspects may often be interconnected, and hence work as drivers to each other. From this offset the national strategy (see Section 5.2) that encompasses policy objectives, economic instruments, management approaches and public informing, generates great possibilities for promoting sustainability in the Finnish CLM along with the increased awareness and the consequent social pressure. Moreover, it has already become evident during the preparation process of the strategy that such a public policy paper, when prepared in true collaboration and mutual understanding between the different interest groups, can effectively modify stakeholders' perceptions and become a real promoter of sustainable practice. In Finland, the currently prevailing political will of finding more sustainable solutions will further enable to attain the desired outcome. One of the indirect positive outcomes would be the creation of new business opportunities, as also highlighted in the forthcoming demonstration project on novel remediation methods (see Section 5.2.1), and the other spearhead projects of the recent Government Programme. It should be noted, however, that the actual change in the practices calls for successful implementation of the upcoming policy instruments involved in the strategy. The elements for successful policy implementation generally include, in particular, transparent preparation of the instruments based on clear objectives, political acceptance and commitment to policy by all the key actors, public funding for the designed instruments, active management and monitoring of the implementation, measures to allow for feedback and modifications in the instruments, and sufficient time for implementation (e.g. Gelders, 2005; Hudson and Lowe, 2009). 6.2. The role of policy measures in the development of remediation market towards sustainability In Finland the remediation of contaminated sites is most commonly based on excavation and off-site disposal. Although this seems to be the case in most parts of Europe, many countries have been able to significantly increase the use in situ and on site techniques as well as the actual treatment of excavated contaminated soils (van Liedekerke et al., 2014). Such progress originates from successful implementation of both public policy instruments (e.g. economic incentives) and private measures such as logistic systems for temporary soil storage and treatment (Reinikainen, 2009). In Finland, the new policy measures strive for promoting novel remediation techniques mainly by policy objectives, guidelines and information steering, in addition to the temporary demonstration project for the technical development of methods. It is reasonable to argue that a greater influence on reshaping the CLM practice by public policy measures, at least in the short term, would be to tackle the disposal stage by economic policy instruments, such as removing the current exemption from landfill tax for contaminated soil. Most of the other European countries already tax soils which are delivered into landfills (Fischer et al., 2012). Although regulatory and economic policy instruments may be required to change the remediation market at a large scale, increasing the knowledge base of the possibilities of using in situ and on-site techniques may also be an effective tool at the national level, particularly when the knowledge can be directly transferred to people and organizations that are responsible for carrying out a large number of remediation projects. In Finland, such knowhow has contributed to major evolution with regard to using in situ technologies within the current national remediation programmes. As a result, currently about 40% of the sites included in the JASKA programme are remediated by applying some in situ methods, such as biostimulation, either alone or in a combination with excavation. Moreover, the total cost savings by using in situ, compared to using

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

10

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

only excavation have been roughly 40% (Nikunen, 2015). It should also be noted that the use of in situ methods within the two programmes has not been a requirement or an objective as such, but their application has been based solely on the technical and economic feasibility. As the technical preconditions for in situ treatment are obviously better for sites contaminated only by petroleum hydrocarbons, compared to many other cases, the results from SOILI and JASKA cannot be anticipated to apply as such in the forthcoming national progamme. However, within the national programme, sustainability considerations, such as requirements to use in situ techniques, can be included already in the project objectives as a precondition as has been done in some other countries when € berl et al., 2013). When such obapplying for public funding (Do jectives and requirements are coupled with the increasing knowhow in the centralized project organization, changes in the state organized remediation can be reasonably expected. Moreover, we believe that the progress within the national programme will also affect the Finnish CLM practices in general by expanding the market and increasing the stakeholder demand, and hence support the objectives of the national strategy. In addition, savings in costs and other resources are anticipated due to the primary objective of the strategy and the national programme; i.e. prioritization and remediation based on actual risks, not concentration thresholds.

6.3. Reuse of soil Despite the presented new policy measures, it is likely that the soil remediation practice will most often be based on excavation even in the future. Hence, efficient utilization of excavated soils is a prerequisite for sustainable land management and a clear policy objective in the revised policy framework in Finland. From the sustainability viewpoint, the efficient reuse is especially important in the areas with high and growing population density and a lack of appropriate disposal sites. In such areas the wide range of impacts of transportation can be often considered being the most critical factor for sustainability in the whole remediation project. In Finland, successful large-scale reuse applications of contaminated soil have been implemented in many recent redevelopment projects in the City of Helsinki with huge cost savings and environmental benefits as shown by several sustainability indicators €rvinen, 2015). Efficient soil management enabling systematic (Ja coordination within the city's own construction projects has been the most important measure for such development. However, at present regulatory barriers restrict extensive reuse activities mainly to these large-scale redevelopment projects in the capital region, and hamper it even then. Such barriers include a lack of guidelines and the likely obligation to apply for an environmental permit due to the somewhat vague definition of waste (EC, 2008). It is therefore obvious that the forthcoming decree with the defined preconditions and the consequent simple notification system that replaces the time-consuming environmental permit procedure will increase the reuse of contaminated and other excess soils nationwide. Moreover, additional policy measures to promote material recycling sector are being prepared within the Government Programme's strategic priorities and spearhead projects advancing sustainable practice in the Finnish construction sector further. Hence, the traditional regulative approach of waste utilization may be partly shifted towards end-of-waste concepts and voluntary schemes as the principles of circular economy are becoming imperative both in private and public policy. The Code-of Practice regarding excavated materials in England and Wales can be seen as an example of such an approach (CL:AIRE, 2011).

7. Conclusions Several studies both in Finland and other countries have shown the importance of clear policy goals and instruments in the attainment of sustainability in CLM. The Finnish government has acknowledged this need and adopted a national strategy for promoting the sustainable management of contaminated land. This strategy includes a new national programme for site investigation and remediation, regulatory guidelines, and economic policy instruments for promoting the adoption of innovative remediation technologies. Several additional and concrete measures are under way for the realization of the policy goals set in the strategy. Besides the several policy measures we described in this paper, the desired shift towards more sustainable practices in the Finnish CLM may eventually require additional steering mechanisms, such as landfill taxes or bans for reusable soils, economic incentives for sustainable remediation, regulatory requirement for the consideration of sustainability and recycling aspects, as well as voluntary approaches among practitioners. The indirect and unforeseeable consequences of such mechanisms need to be carefully studied, however. Particularly taxation as an economic policy instrument can cause unwanted practices, such as illegal dumping of wastes to avoid treatment costs. Moreover, the EU regulations that requires that no barriers are created to free competition, needs to be kept in mind when promoting specific remediation technologies, among other things. It remains to be seen how all the recent and still forthcoming policy actions will finally affect the CLM practices. It is in fact necessary to study the situation after a couple of years from the implementation of all the new policy measures and instruments and if needed, update, modify or complement them. Such a retrospective study can be run along with the surveys on the CLM practices that the Finnish Environment Institute conducts on a regular basis. Acknowledgements This paper is based on the authors' experiences gained during the preparation of the presented policy measures, and several years of continuous dialogue with the different stakeholder groups in the Finnish environmental administration. The authors want to express their gratitude to the Ministry of the Environment for supporting this work, and to all individuals who have participated in the preparation of the new policy measures by commenting the drafts and attending the discussions during the stakeholder meetings. We €derstro €m, Jari Karpalso acknowledge the contribution of Sara So panen, Outi Pyy and Jouko Tuomainen from the Finnish Environment Institute in the realization of the latest survey on administrative decisions. References CL:AIRE, 2009. A Review of Published Sustainability Indicator Sets: How Applicable Are They to Contaminated Land Remediation Indicator-set Development? Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments. CL:AIRE, London. CL:AIRE, 2010. A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments. CL: AIRE, London. CL:AIRE, 2011. The Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice. Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments. CL:AIRE, London. Bardos, P., 2008. Report of the NICOLE/SAGTA workshop: sustainable remediation. Land Contam. Reclam. 16, 381e403. Bardos, P., Bone, B., Boyle, R., Ellis, D., Evans, F., Harries, N.D., Smith, J.W.N., 2011. Applying sustainable development principles to contaminated land management using the SuRF-UK framework. Remediation 21, 77e100. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/rem.20283. Bartke, S., 2011. Valuation of market uncertainties for contaminated land. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. M. 15, 356e378. http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/ 1648715X.2011.633771.

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12 Bartke, S., Schwarze, R., 2015. No perfect tools: trade-offs of sustainability principles and user requirements in designing tools supporting land-use decisions between greenfields and brownfields. J. Environ. Manag. 153, 11e24. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.01.040. Bleicher, A., Groß, M., 2010. Sustainability assessment and the revitalization of contaminated sites: operationalizing sustainable development for local problems. Int. J. Sust. Dev. World 17, 57e66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 13504500903488263. Davies, H.T.O., Nutley, S.M., Smith, P.C., 1999. What works? the role of evidence in public sector policy and practice. Public Money Manag. 19, 3e5. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9302.00144. de Ridder, W., Turnpenny, J., Nilsson, M., von Raggamby, A., 2007. A framework for tool selection and use in integrated assessment for sustainable development. J. Environ. Assess. Pol. Manag. 9, 423e441. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/ S1464333207002883. € berl, G., Ortmann, M., Fruhwirth, W., 2013. Introducing a goal-oriented sustainDo ability assessment method to support decision making in contaminated site management. Environ. Sci. Policy 25, 207e217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.envsci.2012.10.013. Dunn, W., 2004. Public Policy Analysis: an Introduction, third ed. Prentice Hall, New Jersey. EC, 2004. Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on Persistent Organic Pollutants and Amending Directive 79/117/EEC. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. EC, 2006. Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 Concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Establishing a European Chemicals Agency, Amending Directive 1999/45/EC and Repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as Well as Council Directive 76/769/EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/EC. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. EC, 2008. Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives. European Parliament, Council of the European Union. ECHA, 2015. Candidate List of Substances of Very High Concern for Authorisation (Published in Accordance with Article 59(10) of the REACH Regulation). European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). http://echa.europa.eu/fi/candidate-list-table (accessed 21.12.15.). Ellis, D.E., Hadley, P.W., 2009. Sustainable remediation white paper d integrating sustainable principles, practices, and metrics into remediation projects. Remediation 19, 5e114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rem.20210. Ferguson, C., Darmendrail, D., Freier, K., Jensen, B.K., Jensen, J., Kasamas, H., Urzelai, A., Vegter, J., 1998. Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in Europe, vol. 1. Scientific Basis. LQM Press, Nottingham. Fischer, C., Lehner, M., McKinnon, D.L., 2012. Overview of the Use of Landfill Taxes in Europe. ETC/SCP Working Paper 1/2012. European Environment Agency. http:// scp.eionet.europa.eu/publications/WP2012_1/wp/WP2012_1. Gelders, D., 2005. Public information problems in the implementation of public policy: the long road of the reflecting license plate in Belgium. Gov. Inf. Q. 22, 374e388. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.05.006. Holland, K.S., Lewis, R.E., Tipton, K., Karnis, S., Dona, C., Petrovskis, E., Bull, L.P., Taege, T., Hook, C., 2011. Framework for integrating sustainability into remediation projects. Remediation 21, 7e38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rem.20288. Hou, D., Al-Tabbaa, A., Guthrie, P., 2014. The adoption of sustainable remediation behaviour in the US and UK: a cross country comparison and determinant analysis. Sci. Total Environ. 490, 905e913. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2014.05.059. Howlett, M., 2011. Designing Public Policies: Principles and Instruments. Routledge, Abingdon. Howlett, M., Ramesh, M., 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycles and Policy Subsystems. Oxford University Press, Toronto. Hudson, J., Lowe, S., 2009. Understanding the Policy Process. Analysing Welfare Policy and Practice. Policy Press and the Social Policy Association, Bristol. ITRC, 2011. Green and Sustainable Remediation: State of the Science and Practice. GSR-1. Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council (ITRC), Washington D.C. http://www.itrcweb.org/GuidanceDocuments/GSR-1.pdf. Jaakkonen, S., 2008. Treatment of Contaminated Soil in Finland (in Finnish with an English Abstract). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 36/2008. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/39820. Jalonen, H., 2008. Information steering from perspective of knowledge management (in Finnish with English abstract). Informaatiotutkimus 27, 1e14. €rvinen, K., 2015. J€ €saari rakentuu j€ Ja atka atemateriaaleista e resurssitehokas maar€saari will build up of waste materials e resource akentaminen tulee (J€ atka € ja Terv. 7, 40e44. efficient earth construction is coming). Ymp€ aristo Jennings, A.A., 2013. Analysis of worldwide regulatory guidance values for the most commonly regulated elemental surface soil contamination. J. Environ. Manag. 118, 72e95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.12.032. Jordan, A., Turnpenny, J.R., 2015. The Tools of Policy Formulation. Actors, Capacities, Venues and Effects. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham. Jordan, A., Benson, D., Wurzel, R., Zito, A., 2012. Environmental policy: governing by multiple policy instruments? In: Richardson, J. (Ed.), Constructing a Policy Making State?: Policy Dynamics in the EU. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 104e124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199604104.003.0006. Jordan, A., Wurzel, R., Zito, A., 2013. Still the century of “new” environmental policy

11

instruments? Environ. Polit. 22, 155e173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 09644016.2013.755839. €enpa €€ Ma a, M., 2002. Notification Procedure Concerning Remediation of Contaminated Soil (In Finnish with English Abstract). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 253/2002. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. http://hdl. handle.net/10138/40850. Ministry of Justice, 2008. Impact Assessment in Legislative Drafting. Guidelines. Publication 2008, vol. 4. Ministry of Justice, Helsinki. ISBN:978-952-466-439-4. http://urn.fi/URN. Ministry of the Environment, 2015. National Risk Management Strategy for Contaminated Land (In Finnish with English Abstract). Finnish Environment 10/ 2015. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/ 159058. Nadebaum, P., 2011. A Framework for Assessing the Sustainability of Soil and Groundwater Remediation. SuRF ANZ, Australasian Land & Groundwater Association (ALGA) Ltd, and CRC CARE. Nathanail, C.P., Bardos, R.P., 2004. Reclamation of Contaminated Land. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, West Sussex. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0470020954. Nikunen, S., 2015. Experiences of the use of in situ techniques vs. traditional dig and dump. In: Presentation in the 13th International UFZ-Deltares Conference on Sustainable Use and Management of Soil, Sediment and Water Resources. AquaConSoil 2015, Copenhagen, Denmark, 9e12 June 2015. Panagos, P., van Liedekerke, M., Yigini, Y., Montanarella, L., 2013. Contaminated sites in Europe: review of the current situation based on data collected through a European network. J. Environ. Public Health 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/ 2013/158764. Article ID 158764. Pollard, S.J.T., Brookes, A., Earl, N., Lowe, J., Kearney, T.E., Nathanail, C.P., 2004. Integrating decision tools for the sustainable management of land contamination. Sci. Total Environ. 325, 15e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.scitotenv.2003.11.017. Prime Minister’s Office Finland, 2015. Finland, a Land of Solutions. Strategic Pro€’s Government. 29 May 2015. Government gramme of Prime Minister Juha Sipila Publications 12/2015. Prime Minister’s Office, Helsinki. http://vnk.fi/en/ publication?pubid¼6407. Prime Minister’s Office Finland, 2016. Action Plan for the Implementation of the Key Projects and Reforms Defined in the Strategic Government Programme. Government Publications 1/2016. Prime Minister's Office, Helsinki. http://vnk.fi/ julkaisu?pubid¼9502. Pyy, O., Haavisto, T., Niskala, K., Silvola, M., 2013. Contaminated Land in Finland e Report 2013 (In Finnish with English Abstract). Reports of the Finnish Environment Institute 27/2013. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. http://hdl. handle.net/10138/41048. Reed, M.S., 2008. Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Conserv. 141, 2417e2431. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.biocon.2008.07.014. Reinikainen, J., 2007. Derivation Basis of Threshold and Guideline Values for Soil (In Finnish with English Abstract). The Finnish Environment 23/2007. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. http://hdl.handle.net/10138/38431. Reinikainen, J., 2009. Management of excavated contaminated soil e summary of the questionnaire. Presentation in the 9th ICCL meeting, 17e18 September 2009, Helsinki, Finland. http://www.iccl.ch. Reinikainen, J., Sorvari, J., 2016. Promoting justified risk-based decisions in contaminated land management. Sci. Total Environ. 563-564, 783e795. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.12.074. Reinikainen, J., Pyy, O., Sorvari, J., Salminen, J., Sainio, P., Tuomainen, J., Komulainen, H., 2014. Risk Assessment and Sustainable Risk Management of Contaminated Land (In Finnish with English Abstract). Environmental Administration Guidelines 6/2014. Ministry of the Environment, Helsinki. Rizzo, E., Pesce, M., Pizzol, L., Alexandrescu, F.M., Giubilato, E., Critto, A., Marcomini, A., Bartke, S., 2015. Brownfield regeneration in Europe: identifying stakeholder perceptions, concerns, attitudes and information needs. Land Use Policy 48, 437e453. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.06.012. Russel, D., Jordan, A., 2014. Embedding the concept of ecosystem services? the utilization of ecological knowledge in different policy venues. Environ. Plan. C. Gov. Policy 32, 192e207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/c3202ed. Sanderson, I., 2002. Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Adm. 80, 1e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9299.00292. €dler, S., Morio, M., Bartke, S., Finkel, M., 2012. Integrated planning and spatial Scha evaluation of megasite remediation and reuse options. J. Contam. Hydrol. 127, 88e100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2011.03.003. Sorvari, J., 2010. Application of Risk Assessment and Multi-criteria Analysis in Contaminated Land Management in Finland. Monographs of the Boreal Environment Research 37. Finnish Environment Institute, Helsinki. http://hdl. handle.net/10138/39339. Sorvari, J., Antikainen, R., Kosola, M.L., Hokkanen, P., Haavisto, T., 2009. Eco-efficiency in contaminated land management in Finland e Barriers and development needs. J. Environ. Manag. 90, 1715e1727. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2008.11.002. Suter, G.W., Vermeire, T., Munns Jr., W.R., Sekizawac, J., 2006. An integrated framework for health and ecological risk assessment. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 207, 611e616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2005.01.051. U.S. EPA, 1998. Risk-based Corrective Action Guide. DOE/EH-413e9815. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Washington D.C. U.S. EPA, 2008. Green remediation: Incorporating Sustainable Environmental Practices into Remediation of Contaminated Sites. EPA 542-R-08e002. United

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046

12

J. Reinikainen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management xxx (2016) 1e12

States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Washington D.C. USACE, 2010. Decision Framework for Incorporation of Green and Sustainable Practices into Environmental Remediation Projects. Interim Guidance 10e01. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Washington, D.C. van Liedekerke, M., Prokop, G., Rabl-Berger, S., Kibblewhite, M., Louwagie, G., 2014.

Progress in the Management of Contaminated Sites in Europe. Report EUR 26376 EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg. Vegter, J., Lowe, J., Kasamas, H., 2002. Sustainable Management of Contaminated Land: An Overview. A report from the Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies. Umweltbundesamt, Vienna.

Please cite this article in press as: Reinikainen, J., et al., Finnish policy approach and measures for the promotion of sustainability in contaminated land management, Journal of Environmental Management (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.046