The Experts below are selected from a list of 85290 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Valerie Cappuyns - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
critical review of Decision Support Tools for sustainability assessment of site remediation options
Journal of Environmental Management, 2017Co-Authors: Lies Huysegoms, Valerie CappuynsAbstract:Abstract In Europe alone, there are more than 2,5 million potentially contaminated sites of which 14% are expected to require remediation. Contaminated soil and groundwater can cause damage to human health as well as to valuable ecosystems. Globally more attention has been paid to this problem of soil contamination in the past decades. For example, more than 58 000 sites have been remediated in Europe between 2006 and 2011. Together with this increase in remediation projects there has been a surge in the development of new remediation technologies and Decision Support Tools to be able to match every site and its specific characteristics to the best possible remediation alternative. In the past years the development of Decision Support Tools (DST) has evolved in a more sustainable direction. Several DSTs added the claim not only to denote effective or technologically and economically feasible remediation alternatives but also to point out the more or most sustainable remediation alternatives. These trends in the evaluation of site remediation options left users with a confusing clew of possibly applicable Tools to assist them in Decision making for contaminated site remediation. This review provides a structured overview on the extent Decision Support Tools for contaminated site remediation, that claim to assist in choosing the most sustainable remediation alternative, actually include the different elements of sustainability proposed in our assessment framework. The review contains an in-depth analysis of thirteen Tools specifically developed to assess the sustainability of site remediation alternatives. This analysis is based on six criteria derived from the definition of sustainable development of the Brundtland report. The six criteria were concretized by using the three pillars of sustainability, applied to site remediation according to the SuRF-UK framework, two criteria derived from Life Cycle Assessment and Cost-Benefit Analysis, and an ‘User friendly’ criterion. These elements come together in a framework, drafted for this study, containing six criteria covering the environmental, economic, social, time, uncertainty aspects and user friendliness of a sustainable site remediation. The main remarks uncovered by this review are the imbalance of used indicators still expressing a strong preference for the environmental aspect at the expense of the economic and social aspects of sustainability, the lack of consistency in the terminology used within the field and the failure in adapting released Tools to recent legislation or scientific advancements.
-
inclusion of social indicators in Decision Support Tools for the selection of sustainable site remediation options
Journal of Environmental Management, 2016Co-Authors: Valerie CappuynsAbstract:Sustainable remediation requires a balanced Decision-making process in which environmental, economic and social aspects of different remediation options are all considered together and the optimum remediation solution is selected. More attention has been paid to the evaluation of environmental and economic aspects, in particular to reduce the human and environmental risks and the remediation costs, to the exclusion of social aspects of remediation. This paper investigates how social aspects are currently considered in sustainability assessments of remediation projects. A selection of Decision Support Tools (DSTs), used for the sustainability assessment of a remediation project, is analyzed to define how social aspects are considered in those Tools. The social indicator categories of the Sustainable Remediation Forum - United Kingdom (SuRF-UK), are used as a basis for this evaluation. The consideration of social aspects in the investigated Decision Support Tools is limited, but a clear increase is noticed in more recently developed Tools. Among the five social indicator categories defined by SuRF-UK to facilitate a holistic consideration of social aspects of a remediation project only "Human health and safety" is systematically taken into account. "Neighbourhood and locality" is also often addressed, mostly emphasizing the potential disturbance caused by the remediation activities. However, the evaluation of 'Ethics and Equality', Communities and community involvement', and 'Uncertainty and evidence' is often neglected. Nevertheless, concrete examples can be found in some of the investigated Tools. Specific legislation, standard procedures, and guidelines that have to be followed in a region or country are mainly been set up in the context of protecting human and ecosystem health, safety and prevention of nuisance. However, they sometimes already include some of the aspects addressed by the social indicators. In this perspective the use of DST to evaluate the sustainability of a site remediation project, should be tuned to the legislation, guidelines and procedures that are in force in a specific country or region.
Chad A Bousman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
commercial pharmacogenetic based Decision Support Tools in psychiatry
The Lancet Psychiatry, 2016Co-Authors: Chad A Bousman, Malcolm HopwoodAbstract:Despite a compendium of pharmacotherapies available for treating psychiatric illnesses, suboptimal response to these therapies is typical and thought to be in part a result of genetic variation. This notion has sparked a personalised psychiatry movement, which has in turn led to the development of several commercial pharmacogenetic-based Decision Support Tools marketed to psychiatrists as an alternative to typical, trial-and-error, prescribing. However, there is considerable uncertainty about the validity and usefulness of these Tools and whether there is sufficient evidence to Support their adoption. In this Personal View, we provide an introduction to these Tools and assess their potential usefulness in psychiatry practice. We conclude with clinical considerations and development strategies for improving future pharmacogenetic-based Decision Support Tools for clinical use.
Pasquale Trematerra - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
aspects related to Decision Support Tools and integrated pest management in food chains
Food Control, 2013Co-Authors: Pasquale TrematerraAbstract:Abstract There are a number of Tools available for pest management in stored product protection and in the food industry, but often the effectiveness of these approaches and how best to integrate them into a coherent and effective Integrated Pest Management (IPM) programme are not well understood. Many questions remain about the use of these Tools, from the very practical issues such as how many traps are needed and which types work best, to fundamental issues concerning the relationship between trap captures and pest population density, distribution and level of product infestation. Limited acceptance of IPM in food facilities is partially explained by a combination of: costs of responsive pest control interventions; difficulty in sampling properly, combined with unreliable sampling data; calculations of action thresholds being too simplistic. In operational practice precise treatment thresholds and economic injury levels have not been developed, and standards and rejection criteria are inconsistent and difficult to apply. As a result, treatments based on an economic threshold are not typically performed and control strategies are often applied preventively, even when using tactics that do not have any residual effect. In current practice, many locations still rely on calendar-based pesticide applications and have little understanding of the basis of pest management.
Antje Gimpel - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Decision Support Tools in marine spatial planning present applications gaps and future perspectives
Marine Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Kemal Pinarbasi, Ibon Galparsoro, Angel Borja, Vanessa Stelzenmuller, Charles N Ehler, Antje GimpelAbstract:Abstract Evidence-based Decision making is an essential process for sustainable, effective, and efficient marine spatial planning (MSP). In that sense, Decision Support Tools (DSTs) could be considered to be the primary assistant of planners. Although there are many DSTs listed in tool databases, most of them are conceptual and not used in real MSP implementation. The main objective of this review is to: (i) characterize and analyse the present use of the DSTs in existing MSP implementation processes around the world, (ii) identify weaknesses and gaps of existing Tools, and (iii) propose new functionalities both to improve their feasibility and to promote their application. In total, 34 DSTs have been identified in 28 different MSP initiatives with different levels of complexity, applicability and usage purposes. Main characteristics of the Tools were transferred into a DST matrix. It was observed that limited functionality, tool stability, consideration of economic and social Decision problems, ease of use, and tool costs could be considered as the main gaps of existing DSTs. Future developments are needed and should be in the direction of the specific need of marine planners and stakeholders. Results revealed that DST developments should consider both spatial and temporal dynamics of the ocean, and new Tools should provide multi-functionality and integrity; meanwhile they should be easy to use and freely available. Hence, this research summarised current use, gaps, and expected development trends of DSTs and it concludes that there is still a big potential of DST developments to assist operational MSP processes.
Glyn Elwyn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
clinical practice guidelines and patient Decision aids an inevitable relationship
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2012Co-Authors: Trudy Van Der Weijden, Antoine Boivin, Jako S Burgers, Holger J Schunemann, Glyn ElwynAbstract:As health professionals and patients are moving toward shared models of Decision making, there is a growing need for integrated Decision Support Tools that facilitate uptake of best evidence in routine clinical practice in a patient-centered manner. This article charts the landscape of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and patient Decision aids. Decision Support Tools for medical practice can be mapped on two dimensions. (1) The target user and his or her level of Decision making; either for groups of patients or for an individual patient and (2) the level of uncertainty: either Supporting more directive Decision making (behavior Support) in the case of strong recommendations with a single best option or Supporting dialog (deliberation Support) on the pros and cons of different options in the case of conditional (or weak) recommendations. We conclude that it is important to establish closer links between CPGs and patient Decision aids, through collaborative development of both. Such collaboration will encourage the design of Decision Support Tools for professionals and patients who share the same evidence and the aim to increase the quality of Decision making between doctor and patient. This could facilitate the implementation of CPGs and shared Decision making in clinical practice.
