Risk management of chemicals and contaminated land – from planning to verification - Environmental Deterioration and Contamination: Problems and their Management - page 231

Evaluation of the RR alternatives includes the evaluation of technological perfor-
mance and environmental, social and economic impacts. Aspects of the evaluation and
verification before and during implementation of risk management and risk reduction
measures are as follows (see also Figure 9.1):

- Technological efficiency, its assessment based on material balances, quantitative

and qualitative product evaluation;

- Environmental or eco-efficiency and sustainability, characterized by short- and

long-term ERA and LCA;

- Economic efficiency, measured by cost efficiency or by the cost-benefit ratio (CEA:

cost effectiveness analysis and CBA: cost-benefit analysis);

- Social efficiency, assessed by SEA.

Evaluation of the alternative measures to help decision making on the best mea-
sure selection is a prospective evaluation step. This kind of evaluation is supported by
historical information from literature, practical experience, disseminated case studies,
laboratory and microcosm experiments, pilot applications, and full-scale demonstra-
tions. The evaluation should be based on good-quality information and should consider
local context.
Efficiency of the RMO/RR measure is the aggregated result of technological, envi-
ronmental, social and economic evaluations, determining the choice. The problem
is that technological efficiency is not aggregable with environmental (ecological) and
socio-economic efficiencies. Therefore, the experts should work in a team and try to
find the balance between the factors with different units of measures and weights.
MCA is a methodology capable of aggregating the judgments based on different
evaluation criteria rating all of them on relative scales. Another concept for the aggre-
gation of all factors is one which occurs after their monetization. Advocates of this
concept try to monetize all of the environmental, social, cultural, etc. factors and

Figure 9.1 Aspects for prospective comparative evaluation of management options.