SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

References

  • [ASTM] American Society for Testing and Materials. 1998. Standard provisional guide for risk-based corrective action. Philadelphia (PA): ASTM. PS 104–98. p 100.
  • Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Mariotti C, Marot F, Sullivan. 2003 Review of decision support tools for contaminated land management and their use in Europe. A report from the Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies (CLARINET) by the Decision Support Tools Working Group. Vienna (AT): Federal Environment Agency.
  • Barzilai J. 2001. Notes on the analytical hierarchy process. In: Proceedings of the NSF Design and Manufacturing Research Conference; Tampa (FL). p 16.
  • Bridges T, Kiker G, Cura J, Apul D, Linkov I. 2004. Towards using comparative risk assessment to manage contaminated sites. In: LevnerE, LinkovI, ProthJM, editors, Strategic management of marine ecosystems. Amsterdam (NL): Kluwer. p 202210.
  • Carbognin L, Gatto P, Mozzi G. 1972. Hydrogeologic aspects of Venice Lagoon. Venice, Italy. Venice (Italy): National Research Council (CNR. Lab St.Din.Gr.-Ma.). TR32 Final Report. (In Italian.)
  • Carlon C, Critto A, Nadal N, Samiolo M, Marcomini A, Petruzzelli GA. 2003. Desyre—Decision support system for rehabilitation of contaminated sites. In: Proceedings of Consoil 2003 8th International Conference on Contaminated Soil. Gent, Belgium. Karlsruhe (DE): Forschungszentrun Karlsruhe GmbH. p 29872993.
  • Carlsson C, Ehrenberg D, Eklund P, Fedrizzi M, Gustafsson P, Lindholrn P, Merkuryeva G, Riissanen T, Ventre A. 1992. Consensus in distributed soft environments. Eur J Oper Res 61: 165185.
  • Critto A, Zuppi GM, Carlon C, Marcomini A. 2004. Effect of a contaminated site (the San Giuliano landfill, Venice, Italy) on the interaction between water bodies in a coastal aquifer system. Ann Chim 94: 303314.
  • [EC] European Commission. 1999. Directive 1999/31/EC concerning waste landfills. Gaz Ufficiale 182. July 16, 1999. p 19.
  • [EC] European Commission. 2002. Towards a schematic strategy for soil protection. Brussels (Belgium): Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the regions. COM(2002)179.
  • FergusonC, DarmendrailD, FreierK, JensenBK, JensenJ, KasamasH, UrzelaiA, VegterJ. editors. 1998. Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Vol 1: Scientific basis. Nottingham (UK): LQM Press. A report prepared as part of the Concerted Action on Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in the European Union (CARACAS). p 165.
  • FergusonC, KasamasH, editors. 1999. Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe. Vol 2: Policy frameworks. Nottingham (UK): LQM Press. Concerted Action for Risk Assessment for Contaminated Sites in the Europe Union (CARACAS). p 223.
  • [FRTR] Federal Remediation Technology Roundtable. 2002. Remediation technologies screening matrix and reference guide, 4th ed. www.frtr.gov/matrix2/ Accessed 1 February 2005.
  • Gatto P, Carbognin L. 1981. The lagoon of Venice: Natural environmental trend and man-induced modification. Hydrol Sci Bull 26: 379391.
  • Giove S, Critto A, Agostini P, Semenzin E, Marcomini A. 2006. Decision support system for the management of contaminated sites: A multi-criteria approach. In: KikerG, LinkovI, editors. Environmental security and environmental management: Decision analytical and risk-based approaches. Amsterdam (NL): Springer-Verlag. (forthcoming)
  • Golden BL. 1989. The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. New York (NY): Springer-Verlag. p 265.
  • Keeney R, Raiffa H. 1976. Decision with multiple objectives: Preferences and value trade-off. New York (NY): Wiley. p 589.
  • Kwiesielewicz M, Van Uden E. 2004. Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in the AHP. Comput Oper Res 31: 713719.
  • Law decree 471/99. 15 December 1999. Remediation of contaminated sites. Gaz Ufficiale 293. (In Italian.)
  • Linkov I, Sahay S, Kiker G, Bridges T, Seager TP. 2004. Multi-criteria decision analysis: A framework for managing contaminated sites. In: LevnerE, LinkovI, ProthJM, editors. Strategic management of marine ecosystems. Amsterdam (NL): Kluwer. p 151167.
  • Los Alamos National Laboratory. 1996. A compendium of cost data for environmental remediation technologies. Los Alamos (NM): LANL. LA-UR-96–2205.
  • [NATO/CCMS] North Atlantic Treaty Organization/Committee on the Challenges of Modern Science. 2001. Evaluation of demonstrated and emerging technologies for the treatment of contaminated groundwater (phase III). Washington DC: USEPA. EPA-542-R-01–002. Final Report.
  • Norris GA, Marshall HE. 1995. Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluation buildings and building systems. Gaithersburg (MD): National Institute of Standards and Technology, Building and Fire Research Laboratory. NISTIR 5663. Final Report.
  • [OCETA] Ontario Centre for Environmental Technology Advancement. 2001. About remediation: Technology directory case studies. www.aboutremediation.com Accessed 01 December 2004.
  • Ramanathan R. 2001. A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. J Environ Manag 63: 2735.
  • Saaty TL. 1980. The analytic hierarchic process. New York (NY): McGraw Hill. p 287.
  • Saaty TL. 2000. Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. Pittsburg (PA): RWS. p 477.
  • Triantaphyllou E. 1999. Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study. London (UK): Kluwer Academic.
  • [UKEA] UK Environmental Agency. 1999. Cost & benefits analysis for remediation of land contamination. West Midlands (UK): UKEA, National Library & Information Service, Midlands Region, P 316. R&D technical report.
  • [UN] United Nations. 1997. Compendium of soil cleanup technologies and remediation companies. New York (NY) and Geneva (CH): United Nations. ISBN-92–1–116677–2. p 98.
  • [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001a. FRTR cost and performance remediation case studies and related information. Washington DC: USEPA. EPA-542-C-01–003. Technical report.
  • [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2001b. Remediation technologies cost compendium. Washington DC: EPA-542-R-01–009. Technical report.
  • [USEPA] US Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Remediation and characterization innovation technologies (EPA REACH IT). www.epareachit.org Accessed 01 July 2004.
  • Venice City Council. 2001. Knowledge framework to write out the master plan for the rehabilitation of Porto Marghera contaminated site, according to the DPCM 12.02.99. Venice (IT): Council of Venice, Environmental Planning Department. (In Italian.) p 20.
  • Vik EA, Bardos P. 2003. Remediation of contaminated land technology implementation in Europe. A report from the Contaminated Land Rehabilitation Network for Environmental Technologies (CLARINET) by the Remediation Technologies Working Group. Vienna (AT): Federal Environment Agency.
  • Vincke P. 1992. Multicriteria decision-aid. Chichester (UK): Wiley & Sons. p 152.