Comparing the Adoption of Contaminated Land Remediation Technologies in the United States, United Kingdom, and China

被引:12
|
作者
Hou, Deyi [1 ]
O'Connor, David [2 ,3 ]
Al-Tabbaa, Abir [4 ]
机构
[1] Parsons Corp Walnut Creek, Walnut Creek, CA 94596 USA
[2] Univ Cambridge, Dept Engn, Cambridge, England
[3] Golder Associates, Remediat Engn, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Cambridge, Dept Engn, Environm & Geotechn Grp, Cambridge, England
关键词
D O I
10.1002/rem.21413
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
In many locations across the world, land contamination poses a serious threat to human health and the wider environment. For instance, a report published on April 17, 2014, revealed that China now has 16.1 percent of its land contaminated by various organic and inorganic contaminants, posing a range of challenges from human health risk to food security. The innovation and adoption of suitable remediation technologies is critical for solving land contamination issues. However, little is known about the pattern of remediation technology adoption, as well as its determining factors. This study uses a questionnaire survey in the United States, United Kingdom, and China to examine the spatial variation of remediation technology adoption. It further explores the temporal trend of remediation technology adoption using secondary data from the U.S. Superfund program. The study identified significant differences in remediation technology adoption among these countries, which are attributed to the different environmental, social, economic, and regulatory contexts. It is argued that the full implications of remediation technology adoption to sustainable development should be further studied, and policy instruments should be designed accordingly to promote those remediation technologies that align the best with long-term sustainability. Technology developers may also use these implications to adjust their research and development priorities. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
引用
收藏
页码:33 / 51
页数:19
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Juvenile delinquency in the United States and the United Kingdom.
    Cohn, AW
    [J]. FEDERAL PROBATION, 1999, 63 (02) : 97 - 98
  • [42] History of Trade between the United Kingdom and the United States
    Flux, A. W.
    [J]. ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1900, 10 (38): : 223 - 225
  • [43] Corporate Community Contributions in the United Kingdom and the United States
    Stephen Brammer
    Stephen Pavelin
    [J]. Journal of Business Ethics, 2005, 56 : 15 - 26
  • [44] A trade deal between the United Kingdom and United States
    McKee, Martin
    Barlow, Pepita
    Stuckler, David
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2017, 356
  • [45] Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom
    Smith-Bindman, R
    Chu, PW
    Miglioretti, DL
    Sickles, EA
    Blanks, R
    Ballard-Barbash, R
    Bobo, JK
    Lee, NC
    Wallis, NG
    Patnick, J
    Kerlikowske, K
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2003, 290 (16): : 2129 - 2137
  • [46] Comparative Health Politics: The United States and the United Kingdom
    Sparer, Michael S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HEALTH POLITICS POLICY AND LAW, 2011, 36 (01) : 1 - 4
  • [47] Trust, Diversity, and Segregation in the United States and the United Kingdom
    Uslaner, Eric
    [J]. COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY, 2011, 10 (02) : 221 - 247
  • [48] National Income in the United Kingdom and the United States of America
    不详
    [J]. REVIEW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, 1942, 10 : 1 - 27
  • [49] INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND PROFITS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE UNITED STATES
    Stern, Ernest H.
    [J]. ECONOMIC JOURNAL, 1955, 65 (259): : 485 - 497
  • [50] Names of Legal Profession in the United Kingdom and the United States
    Chunyan Cui Na Liu (Department of Foreign Language
    [J]. 科技信息, 2007, (36) : 700 - 702