methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

The PMC website is updating on October 15, 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments

Anna m. hersperger.

1 Head of Land Use Systems Group, Land Change Science Research Unit, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland

Simona R. Grădinaru

2 Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

Ana Beatriz Pierri Daunt

Carole s. imhof.

3 Land Change Science Research Unit, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zurich, Switzerland

4 School of Planning, Design, and Construction and Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA

Associated Data

Landscape ecology as an interdisciplinary science has great potential to inform landscape planning, an integrated, collaborative practice on a regional scale. It is commonly assumed that landscape ecological concepts play a key role in this quest.

The aim of the paper is to identify landscape ecological concepts that are currently receiving attention in the scientific literature, analyze the prevalence of these concepts and understand how these concepts can inform the steps of the planning processes, from goal establishment to monitoring.

We analyzed all empirical and overview papers that have been published in four key academic journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning in the years 2015–2019 (n = 1918). Title, abstract and keywords of all papers were read in order to identify landscape ecological concepts. A keyword search was applied to identify the use of these and previously mentioned concepts in common steps of the planning cycle.

The concepts Structure , Function , Change , Scale , Landscape as human experience , Land use , Landscape and ecosystem services , Green infrastructure , and Landscape resilience were prominently represented in the analyzed literature. Landscape ecological concepts were most often mentioned in context of the landscape analysis steps and least in context of goal establishment and monitoring.

Conclusions

The current literature spots landscape ecological concepts with great potential to support landscape planning. However, future studies need to address directly how these concepts can inform all steps in the planning process.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10980-021-01193-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction

Prompted by fast and extensive landscape changes throughout the world, landscape ecology aims to provide policy relevant information about landscape change and form the base for landscape management, design and policy (Wu 2013 ; Mayer et al. 2016 ). The discipline has a long tradition in reaching out and building bridges to fields of action such as landscape sustainability (Wu 2010 ), landscape approach (Reed et al. 2016 ), landscape design (Nassauer and Opdam 2008 ) and regional and landscape planning (Forman 2008 ). The contribution of landscape ecology to inform planning and research management has been addressed in conceptual and empirical studies (see e.g., Ahern 1999 ; Pedroli et al. 2006 ; Opdam et al. 2013 ; Wu 2013 ; Milovanović et al. 2020 ). Few studies have also analyzed how landscape ecology has been used in landscape planning practices and plan making (e.g., Termorshuizen et al. 2007 ; Bjärstig et al. 2018 ; Trammell et al. 2018 ).

How landscape ecology has reached out to landscape planning, i.e., the focus of this research, is especially interesting. Landscape ecology is an interdisciplinary scientific discipline that focuses on spatial pattern and heterogeneity, and specifically their characterization and description over time, their causes and consequences and how humans manage those (Turner et al. 2001 ). The conceptual and theoretical core of landscape ecology links natural and social sciences to understand landscapes as arenas where structural features and social construction converge (Pinto-Correia and Kristensen 2013 ).

Landscape planning is prominent across the world as an integrated, collaborative practice on a regional scale (Steiner 2008 ; Selman 2012 ) and benefits from landscape ecology in manifold ways. It focuses often on rural areas or open landscapes, where conflicts between urban sprawl and recreational landscape values, agricultural production and nature conservation, and renewable energy production and aesthetics dominate (Mann et al. 2018 ). Landscape planning greatly varies from place to place and can be integrated into the institutions (e.g., in Germany), provide an input into strategic spatial planning (e.g., in Switzerland), be conducted as an ad hoc initiative (e.g., in the USA) or be largely missing (e.g., in Romania) (Hersperger et al. 2020 ).

Landscape planning as an academic field is undertheorized, as evidenced by the fact that very few scientific journals are devoted to landscape planning (with the notable exception of “Landscape and Urban Planning”). However, landscape planning has a strong tradition in addressing procedural aspects that has led to established planning procedures. They operationalize the planning process through a sequence of steps and are well suited to investigate the link between landscape ecology and planning. Well-known examples are Steiner’s Ecological Planning Model (Steiner 2008 ), Steinitz’ Framework for Landscape Planning (Steinitz 2012 ), and Ahern’s Framework Method for Sustainable Ecological Planning (Ahern 1999 ). In this line of work are also proposals that explicitly address landscape ecological planning (Wang et al. 2001 ; Hersperger 2006 ; Miklós and Špinerová 2019 ). The pragmatic conceptualization of the planning process into a sequence of steps should not undermine the fact that landscape planning, like any kind of spatial planning, must be accepted as an ongoing political activity that is geared towards negotiation and conflict resolution between different public and private actors, within an arena of dynamic multi-level power relations and funding regimes (Oliveira and Hersperger 2019 ).

Landscape ecological concepts hold a great potential for integrating landscape ecological knowledge into landscape planning (Botequillha Leitao and Ahern 2002 ). We understand “concept” in line with Merriam-Webster's online dictionary as representing an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances (Merriam-Webster 2020 ). In the case of landscape ecology, these ideas can refer to the representation and organization of landscape elements (e.g., in terms of connectivity), to landscape characteristics (e.g., patterns) or to frameworks for landscape analysis (e.g., landscape services). Most of these concepts have an intrinsic spatial nature. The goal of this paper is to review recent publications to assess the use of landscape ecological concepts in planning. Specifically, we address the following research questions:

• Landscape ecological concepts: What are they? How frequently are they mentioned in current research?
• How have landscape ecological concepts been integrated into landscape planning?

We present results on the identified landscape ecological concepts, their prevalence and integration into planning. The discussion centers on the use of landscape ecological concepts and on promising opportunities for landscape ecological concepts in planning.

Data collection

To collect our data, we adopted the PRISMA approach for systematic review (Moher et al. 2009 ). Four key journals in the field of landscape ecology were selected to conduct the analysis, respectively Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape Online (LO), Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER), and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP). The choice was based on (1) the relevance for landscape ecology science and (2) the clear linkages between landscape science into planning, based on aim and scope descriptions (for details see Supplementary material 1). All articles published in the four journals in the period 2015–2019 were downloaded and served as a basis for the analysis (n = 1918). The five years period was considered long enough to prevent distortions caused by special issues and short enough to keep the workload manageable.

Identification and prevalence of landscape ecological concepts

Since we are not aware of a list of well-accepted landscape ecological concepts that would be suitable for our analysis, we resorted to an early publication that identified landscape ecological concepts when discussing landscape ecology and its potential application to planning (Hersperger ( 1994 ). To account for recent developments, we analyzed the sample of publications described above. Based on reading the title, abstract and keywords of all papers, an extensive list of concepts, topics and types of landscapes was extracted (n = 39). The high number can be explained by the fact that these concepts are often rather specific because their names have been taken directly from the paper. Each concept was assigned to a type (landscape ecology sensu stricto, ecology, land change science, planning/management, landscape perception). These types were used for a first grouping. We distinguished concepts from (1) topics, in the sense that the later are considered a theme addressed within the broader scientific discourse rather than abstract or generic idea in landscape ecology (e.g., climate change, sustainability), and (2) types of landscapes (e.g., agricultural landscapes, historic landscapes). The extensive list of concepts extracted from the first screening went through subsequent regrouping. Synthesizing led to the definition of seven additional concepts, where the detailed entries in the original list are often used to describe the concepts.

Then, all 1918 papers went through a keyword search to identify the use of early and additional concepts. We used the “pdfsearch” package in R programming language, version 3.6 (R Core Team 2020 ; LeBeau 2018 ) and searched for singular and plural forms and different variations of the concepts, e.g., for “holism”, we also searched for “holistic”; and for “classification of landscape types”, we searched for “classification of landscape”, “landscape classification”, “landscape classes” (see Supplementary material 1, Table A). Results are reported as frequency of use per journal and/or period and can be interpreted as an indicator of how prevalent these concepts are.

Integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning

The title, abstract and keywords of the papers (n = 1918 articles) were screened to identify papers which might show how landscape ecological concepts are integrated into planning. A subsample of n = 131 papers was identified, which was further assessed for eligibility by full-reading. We retained 84 papers: 52 empirical papers and 32 overview papers for further analysis (see Supplementary material 4). The overview papers were further differentiated into reviews of scientific papers, evaluations of plans and projects, and frameworks and essays.

Full reading of the empirical papers allowed us to evaluate how landscape ecology concepts have been integrated into each planning step of the planning cycle. The planning steps were derived from works by Steiner ( 2008 ), Steinitz ( 2012 ), and Botequillha Leitao and Ahern ( 2002 ) (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). To systematically collect the data, we used a protocol which addressed the following questions: (a) which type of planning is addressed by the paper?, (b) to which planning level does the paper refer to?, (c) which concepts are integrated in any of the planning steps described above? The insights from the overview papers on the integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning were synthesized after careful reading. To ensure systematic interpretation, all readers applied the protocol in two articles, and we calibrated the assessments and interpretation through detailed discussions (for more detail see Supplementary material 2).

Steps of the planning process for the analysis, derived from Steiner ( 2008 ), Steinitz ( 2012 ) and Botequillha Leitao and Ahern ( 2002 )

Landscape ecological concepts in current research

Table ​ Table2a 2 a lists the eight concepts discussed by Hersperger ( 1994 ). GIS was also mentioned as a concept but was omitted from our analysis since it has developed into a widely used tool. Over time, many differentiations within the composite concept of Structure, function, change have been developed. The three components of the concept now form the basis of many quantitative landscape assessments, e.g., with landscape metrics (Costanza and Terando 2019 ), and change (Land change) became a science of its own. Thus, Structure , Function and Change will be treated as separate concepts in the quantitative analysis.

Landscape ecological concepts. Table 2 a Early concepts (description and references based on Hersperger 1994 ); Table ​ Table2b 2 b Additional concepts that were derived from papers published in 2015-2019 in the journals Landscape Ecology, Landscape Online, Current Landscape Ecology Reports, and Landscape and Urban Planning

Our analysis of the papers published in the past 5 years identified seven additional concepts (Table ​ (Table2b). 2 b). In the following paragraphs, the concepts are described, while the potential of the concepts for linking landscape ecology and planning will be explored in the discussion section.

Landscapes as socio-ecological systems

Socio-ecological systems, also called coupled human–environment (H-E) systems, provide a useful integrated analytical framework to understand the relationships between humans and environment (Holling 2001 ; Miyasaka et al. 2017 ). While heterogeneity, hierarchy, and feedback mechanisms are essential characteristics of socio-ecological systems, different integrated approaches have been developed to understand socio-ecological systems, including system dynamic models, spatial optimization models, spatial Bayesian Network models, and agent-based models (Liu et al. 2007 ; Le et al. 2012 ; Miyasaka et al. 2017 ).

Landscape resilience

Holling introduced the concept of resilience in ecological systems in 1973, as the persistence of relationships within a system that measures the ability of these systems to absorb changes (Holling 1973 ). Specifically, Landscape resilience is the capacity of a landscape/system to maintain the landscape process, ecological, economic, and social functions under changing conditions, and under diverse physical and socioeconomic challenges (Beller et al. 2018 ; Mock and Salvemini 2018 ). Schippers et al. ( 2015 ) suggest that resilient landscapes are determined by landscape diversity and spatial organization, and that greater variation in ecosystem elements provides more ecosystem services and enhances the resilience of landscape.

Landscape and ecosystem services

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) ( 2005 ) popularized the ecosystem services concept in the early 2000s. The mapping and assessment of ecosystem services have since been high on the agenda of many administrations. Like ecosystems, landscapes provide vital services to people (Keller and Backhaus 2020 ), i.e., the many and varied benefits to humans gifted by the natural environment. The ecosystem services concept is by far more prevalent in the scientific discourse than the landscape service concept. Some of the ideas that have inspired the development of the landscape service concept have been taken up by the broadening ecosystem services concept, as witnessed by the formulation “ecosystem services in the landscape context” and by the landscape approach. Termorshuizen and Opdam ( 2009 ) point out that in the context of landscape and ecosystem service discussions, “landscape” is used for all kinds of areas, whereas “ecosystem” is often associated with protected areas and biodiversity.

Green infrastructure

The concept of Green infrastructure refers to the network of green and blue elements such as remnant native vegetation, parks, private gardens, golf courses, street trees, and engineered options such as green roofs, green walls, bio filters, and rain gardens (Norton et al. 2015 ). Green infrastructure can promote ecosystem and human health in urban areas (Tzoulas et al. 2007 ). Unlike other types of public infrastructure such as roads, storm water systems, and schools, green infrastructure is often considered as amenity, not as a necessity (Benedict et al. 2006 ). Furthermore, the contribution of green infrastructure to mitigating high temperatures in urban landscapes, and to adapt to climate change more generally, has been widely recognized (Norton et al. 2015 ).

Multifunctionality

The concept of Multifunctionality highlights that landscapes tend to have multiple outputs and provides perspectives for “delivering joined-up policy where its core property of interactivity can be harnessed in ways that produce qualities valued by people” (Selman 2009 ). The concept developed from a feature of European agricultural landscapes (Otte et al. 2007 ) into an interdisciplinary concept which allows for understanding and analyzing landscapes from various perspectives, e.g., social, cultural, ecological, aesthetic (Bolliger et al. 2011 ). Landscapes serve multiple functions at the same time through (1) the same piece of land serving several uses, (2) an area being made up by many small areas dedicated to specific uses, and (3) interactions of uses (Otte et al. 2007 ). The concept is in line with the current shift from taming nature to reconnecting with nature, reflected by research directions on human-nature interactions, such as socio-ecological systems and human-wildlife coexistence (König et al. 2020 ).

Land use can be defined as “the total of arrangements, activities and inputs undertaken in a certain land cover type to produce, change or maintain it” (FAO 1997 ; Verburg et al. 2015 ). In other words, land use indicates the way geographic space is occupied by society and its activities. Typical land use categories include agriculture, grazing, forestry, transportation, residential, commercial, and recreation. The type of management and the intensity of land use affect stress and potential environmental degradation. The concept allows an integrated focus on structural and functional landscape aspects while addressing human agency.

Landscape as human experience

The concept of Landscape as human experience evolved from early conceptual research on perceptual and psychological processes related to nature, such as the framework by Kaplan ( 1995 ) on human-nature relationships and the conceptual model by Gobster et al. ( 2007 ) on the relationship between aesthetics and ecology. The concept flourished with the application of new technologies that allowed for quantitative measurements of human experience, such as stress measurement based on salivary cortisol (Ward Thompson et al. 2012 ). The concept integrates social and cultural processes affecting landscape valuation and includes, among others, aspects of sense of place and soundscapes. Sense of place is particularly used to reflect the way people or communities attribute meaning, value, and significance to landscapes (Soini et al. 2012 ). The term soundscape is most often used to refer to the acoustic environment as perceived, experienced and/or understood by individuals and communities (Alleta et al. 2016 ).

Prevalence of landscape ecological concepts

Findings of the keyword search show that four of the early concepts in Table ​ Table2a 2 a are frequently used in today`s publications, namely Structure , Function , Change and Scale (Fig.  1 ). Concepts that refer to theories are rarely mentioned in our sample, i.e., Hierarchy theory (12 mentions), General system theory (two mentions), and Chaos theory (no mentions). Findings further show that three of the additional concepts in Table ​ Table1b 1 b are widely used in today`s publications: Landscape as human experience , Land use and Landscape and ecosystem services (Fig.  1 ). They are followed by Green infrastructure and Resilience . Socio-ecological systems and Multifunctionality are rarely mentioned. The numbers per year remained rather stable (Fig.  1 ).

Number of times a concept was used in the 1918 papers published in the years 2015–2019 by the journals Landscape Ecology, Landscape Online, Current Landscape Ecology Reports, and Landscape and Urban Planning. Early concepts are listed on the left, additional concepts on the right. For the full name of concepts, see Table ​ Table2. 2 . The concepts Change , Scale , Structure , Function , Landscape as human experience , Land use , Landscape and ecosystem services , Green infrastructur e and Resilience were mentioned more than 500 times

Journals clearly differ in terms of the prevalence of landscape ecological concepts. Regarding early concepts, Change has been the most prominent concept in all four journals, followed by Scale and Structure (Fig.  2 a). In Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) Change is relatively prominent, in Landscape Online (LO) Structure , and in Landscape Ecology (LE) and Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER) Scale (Fig.  2 a, Table B in Supplementary material 3). The analysis of the additional concepts shows that certain concepts are more prominent in certain journals. For example, papers referring to Landscape resilience are predominantly published in Landscape Ecology (LE), while articles addressing Landscape and ecosystem services are most prominent in the journal Landscape Online (LO) (Fig.  2 b, Table C in Supplementary material 3).

Share in the use of each concept by the journals Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER), Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape Online (LO), and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) in the 1918 papers published in the years 2015–2019. Numbers in brackets after journal abbreviations refer to the number of publications in the five years. Left (Table ​ (Table2 2 a refers to early concepts; Right (Table ​ (Table2 2 b ) to additional concepts. For the full name of concepts, see Table ​ Table2. 2 . Journals clearly differ in terms of the prevalence of landscape ecological concepts

The journals Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) and Landscape Ecology (LE) regularly publish articles that clearly focus on certain concepts, i.e., a concept is used more than 100 times per article (Fig.  3 a and b). Articles published in Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER) use early concepts more frequently than articles published in any of the other three journals (Fig.  3 a). Furthermore, the concept Holism is most often present in papers published by Landscape Online (LO). Interestingly, we found that in the journals Landscape Online (LO) and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) the additional concepts are more prevalent than the early concepts, whereas in Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER) and Landscape Ecology (LE) we see the inverse pattern (Fig.  3 a, b).

Average number of times a concept was used in a single publication by the journals Current Landscape Ecology Reports (CLER), Landscape Ecology (LE), Landscape Online (LO), and Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) in the 1918 papers published in the years 2015–2019. Left (Table 3 a ) refers to early concepts; Right (Table 3 b ) to additional concepts. The journals Landscape and Urban Planning (LUP) and Landscape Ecology (LE) regularly publish articles that clearly focus on certain concepts, i.e., a concept is used more than 100 times per article (a and b)

Integration of landscape ecological concepts into planning in current research

Empirical papers.

Most of the 52 empirical papers in this cohort address urban planning (20 papers) and conservation planning (15), followed by land use planning and landscape planning (both with 8 papers), and landscape restoration (3). Eight papers refer to other types of planning, including strategic environmental assessment and community-based landscape management. Most papers refer to planning at the landscape (28), local (15) and regional level (11).

Out of all concepts, only Structure is prominent throughout the planning process (Fig.  4 , Table D in Supplementary material 3). Also present in all steps are Land use and Landscape as human experience . The other concepts were only occasionally present and Holism and Stability were mentioned only once in connection with a planning step (i.e., grouped in category Other in Fig.  4 ). Most of the 52 papers address landscape ecological concepts in the Analysis step, followed by Preferred plan, Participation and communication, Alternative options, and Goal establishment. Very few papers address landscape ecological concepts in Monitoring. Thus, the concepts are often used for the analysis of the study area, with no deep integration into the entire planning process.

Number of times landscape ecological concepts were addressed in planning steps in the 52 empirical papers analyzed in detail. For the full name of concepts, see Table ​ Table2. 2 . Concepts were most often addressed in the Landscape analysis step and least in Monitoring

Overview papers

In this cohort of 32 papers, eight literature reviews address the integration of landscape ecology into planning. New planning approaches are addressed in reviews on novel ecosystems and socio-ecological resilience by Collier ( 2015 ) and on sustainable landscape/landscape sustainability by Zhou et al. ( 2019 ). Most reviews focus on integration of specific aspects into planning, i.e., connectivity (Godfree et al. 2017 ; Costanza and Terando 2019 ), human perception (Dorning et al. 2017 ; Mahmoudi and Maller 2018 ), and urban biodiversity (Norton et al. 2016 ).

Several papers evaluate plans or projects that have been based on landscape ecological approaches. The focus is on landscape patterns (e.g., Meyer et al. 2015 ), landscape and ecosystem services (Spyra et al. 2019 ; van der Sluis et al. 2019 ), integrated landscape initiatives (Zanzanaini et al. 2017 ) and urban tree initiatives (Foo and Bebbington 2018 ). One paper directly addresses the evidence and opportunity for integrating landscape ecology into natural resource planning in public lands of the USA by evaluating the implementation of two plans (Trammell et al. 2018 ).

Most prominent among the overview contributions are essays and conceptual frameworks. They focus on the potential of planning and management and the role of planners for addressing a range of issues. They relate to landscape and ecosystem services (Musacchio 2018 ), socio-ecological systems (Fischer 2018 ), conservation (Gagne et al. 2015 ), integrated landscape management (Mann et al. 2018 ), and nature-based solutions (Albert et al. 2019 ). Two papers of a special issue addressed ecological wisdom (Young 2016 ; Wang et al. 2016 ). Most papers, however, provide frameworks and discussions for improving certain aspects of landscape planning and governance: They provide, for example, frameworks for prioritizing green infrastructure (Norton et al. 2015 ), restoration strategies (Hessburg 2015 ) and small-scale urban heterogeneity in urban environments (Zhou et al. 2017 ). Several contributions focus on the planning process for landscape and ecosystem services (e.g., Babí Almenar et al. 2018 ; Vialatte et al. 2019 ).

We first reflect on the findings regarding landscape ecological concepts and the frequency of their mentioning (research question 1) and continue with how landscape ecological concepts have been integrated into the six main steps of the planning process (research question 2). We then explore how the additional concepts can support the link between landscape ecology and planning. We also point out limitations of our study and outline potential further research.

Landscape ecological concepts and their frequency

The most often mentioned concepts include early concepts such as Change , Scale , Structure and Function , as well as newer concepts such as Landscape as human experience , Land use and Landscape and ecosystem services . It implies that while the science of landscape ecology is evolving, it is not leaving its roots. Indeed, the distinction between early concepts and additional concepts allows an interpretation of developments over time. Early concepts, particularly Structure , Function , Change and Scale , are useful for examining and evaluating landscape patterns and processes and have been used heavily in recent years. Newer concepts emphasize more strongly the use of landscapes for human benefits. This is especially true for concepts such as Landscape as human experience , Land use , and Landscape and ecosystem services . The early concepts focusing on specific systems behavior, i.e., Chaos theory , Hierarchy theory and General system theory , have lost importance and are likely integrated into the new concept Landscapes as socio-ecological systems . This change could be interpreted as a transition towards a more applied discipline.

We found additional concepts to be more prevalent than the early concepts in the journals LUP and LO, while the opposite patterns were found in journals CLER and LE. While the differences are rather small, they are in line with the differences in the aims and scopes of the respective journals (see Supplementary material 1). Most importantly, LE and CLER explicitly focus on landscape structure and function or change, while LO and LUP focus on landscapes as human experience.

Landscape ecological concepts in the steps of the planning process

Surprisingly, out of almost two thousand publications in the four key journals in landscape ecology and landscape planning, only a small number was found promising for analyzing the integration of landscape ecological concepts into landscape planning (52 empirical and 32 overview papers). Many more publications of course recommended in a general statement that their findings may improve planning. These papers provide, for example, novel insights in human–environment interactions and propose new methods to describe and assess landscapes. Many also address landscape ecological concepts. However, a clear link from the concepts to planning, and moreover to planning steps remains the exception.

The inventory and analysis of the biophysical and socioeconomic landscape patterns and processes provide an understanding of how the landscape works (Steiner 2008 ; Steinitz 2012 ). This research lends itself to scientific approaches. It is therefore not surprising that we found that most papers addressed landscape ecology concepts in the Analysis step. In contrast, few papers clearly addressed the Preferred plan step, and even when they did, they recommended very generic actions. Notable exceptions are, for example, referring to the design of greenbelts (Siedentop et al. 2016 ), and the proposal for patches for restoration and protection along preferred routes of movement to build ecological corridors (Babí Almenar et al. 2019). The limited number of papers contributing to the step Monitoring may be because the field of planning evaluation is still evolving (Grădinaru et al. 2020 ).

In our sample, only few papers connect landscape ecology concepts with all steps of the planning process. We interpret this finding twofold. First, this might be a consequence of the publication tradition: word limits for journal articles make it difficult to address all steps in sufficient detail. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the focus on only one or a few planning steps probably reflects a disciplinary division. Landscape ecology scientists might have a limited understanding of the planning process. As the Analysis step fits their experience the best, the link to other steps is done at a more general level.

To overcome the limited integration of landscape ecology concepts in all steps of the planning process, more dialogues between the disciplines are needed. For example, dialogue could be established through conference co-production with landscape ecologists and planners. For the research community, making use of all the publication options (e.g., supplementary material, data in brief, interactive data visualizations) could be a way of describing research on all steps of the planning process in a rigorous manner.

How landscape ecological concepts can provide a link to planning

Due to its characteristics, each landscape ecological concept offers unique opportunities to link landscape ecological knowledge with planning. The potential use of the early concepts in planning was already explored by Hersperger ( 1994 ). Since then, Structure , Function and Change have become key concepts in landscape ecology, and systematic landscape analysis guided by these concepts supports the planning and design of patterns, processes and human–environment interactions. Landscape Classification often forms the basis for landscape analysis of this kind. The concept of Scale supports analysis in hierarchical systems and is therefore ideally suited to support planning at multiple administrative scales, from neighborhoods to nations. The public often perceives landscapes as holistic entities and therefore Holism can be an important aspect in participatory landscape processes. Early theoretical concepts such as Systems theory, Hierarchy and Stability seem to offer less direct links to today's landscape planning. Below, the possible links of the additional concepts to planning are explained in more detail.

Landscapes as social ecological systems

An understanding of landscapes as social ecological systems can facilitate the development of integrated models that conceptualize landscapes as nested sets of co-evolving social and natural subsystems connected through feedbacks, time lags, and cross-scale interactions. These models can be used to assess the effects of policies on dynamically linked social and ecological components of the landscape system (Miyasaka et al. 2017 ). Such models may lead to holistic approaches to manage forest landscape (Fischer 2018 ) or to resolve land use conflict (Karimi and Hockings 2018 ).

To efficiently plan intact natural systems as well as heavily modified landscapes, it is essential to understand how landscapes might react to impacts and challenges. Planning activities based on the Landscape resilience concept can help to improve the chances of rapid and effective response to a range of impacts, including extreme events and catastrophes (Ahern 2013 ; Beller et al. 2018 ). The Landscape resilience concept , as well as the Green infrastructure concept , are thus suited to support planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

A structured assessment of Landscape and ecosystem services supports the design of broadly accepted plans that ensure the optimal provision of multiple services to humans. Furthermore, landscape and ecosystem services have been proposed as a unifying common ground where scientists from various disciplines can cooperate in producing a common knowledge base that can be integrated into multifunctional, actor-led landscape development (Termorshuizen and Opdam 2009 ).

The concept of Green infrastructure supports the integration of multifunctionality and connectivity into planning. Conceived as a network with patches and corridors, this landscape ecological concept is easily integrated into landscape and spatial planning. Recent research on how users perceive green spaces and which green spaces users prefer has the potential to improve planning for quality of life and health, especially for urban residents (Mahmoudi Farahani et al. 2018 ). The concept of Green infrastructure is well suited to guide the development of planning options and specifically, to support planning for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

For planning and policy, multifunctionality paves the way for integration of ecological concerns into multiple policy domains, such as climate change through green infrastructure or agricultural policy, illustrated by Common Agricultural Policy in Europe and the Land Stewardship project in Australia (Cocklin et al. 2006 ). In urban settings, Multifunctionality can be used to plan the urban fringe or shift away from mono-functional uses. Its delivery entails integrated planning approaches such as participatory planning (Selman 2009 ).

The concept is at the heart of land-use and landscape planning. A landscape ecological perspective on land use is expected to provide detailed knowledge on land-use systems and land-use intensity as well as on the management options for sustainable land use. Furthermore, a focus on land use stresses how global environmental change results in severe impacts on biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity and landscape and ecosystem services (Verburg et al. 2015 ).

Participatory landscape planning is closely linked with participants’ landscape experience. Thus, assessments of human landscape experience and landscape perception greatly support landscape planning and design (Downes et al. 2015 ). The concept Landscape as human experience is well suited to represent the heterogeneous expectations towards landscape planning.

Hersperger ( 1994 ) suggested that there were only a few applications of landscape ecology concepts into planning of urbanized areas. However, in our sample of recently published research, we found many papers that integrate landscape ecology concepts into urban planning showing that the number of applications has increased and diversified over time. These studies particularly rely on concepts such as Landscape and ecosystem services , Green infrastructure , Landscape as human perception and address planning steps such as analyses, participation and communication. In the same publication, it was furthermore suggested that landscape ecological planning in rural and natural areas mainly focus on conservation planning. We observe that conservation planning continues to be a frequent topic, and we came across many papers that address landscape structure as an important concept for conservation planning, and specifically focus on enhancing landscape connectivity in protected areas.

Limitations of the analysis

Our findings show that there is limited integration of landscape ecology and planning. A certain bias in the findings could be due to the data in our sample. We focused on the period 2015–2019 in four key journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning to conduct our analysis. While these four journals provide insights into the state-of-the-art research in the field with a broad range of cultural and language regions and easy accessibility, applied research might be underrepresented in our sample. Further research may consider to include other journals (e.g., on landscape architecture, planning practice) or to conduct an analysis on landscape projects.

Furthermore, the assessment on integration of the concepts into planning showed that articles often address this aspect in a general manner. As we collected information on explicit integration into the planning steps, a less conservative approach than ours could lead to different results. Regular planning and project evaluation studies could be useful to observe how effectively landscape ecological concepts have been integrated into planning (see e.g., Hersperger et al. 2020 ).

Future research

To overcome the weak integration of landscape ecological concepts into the planning process shown in this research, we propose the following measures. More funding could be provided to research on translating disciplinary landscape ecological research into concepts that can be used in planning. Setting up landscape monitoring systems could encourage both planners and researchers to develop the theoretical aspects related to the Monitoring step. Case studies of landscape ecological planning and the developments of tools to evaluate and monitor the planning activities would be good as a start to promote this dialogue between theory and practice. Journals could open up to publishing more articles on science-practice interactions. For example, formats such as notes or policy briefs could be a way to encourage involvement of landscape ecology scientists in landscape planning. Furthermore, journals could be more rigorous in respect to application of research in planning. Sentences such as “findings can be useful for practice”, which we often encountered in our review, are too general to provide a thorough background for planning practice.

As an interdisciplinary scientific field, landscape ecology has great potential to inform planning through key concepts of landscape ecology that have been used in the development of the field. Hersperger’s article in 1994 expressed the hope to use the then developing theories and concepts of landscape ecology to change the traditional human-centered environmental planning approach towards a true synthesis of people and nature. After 26 years, responding to the call of the early article of Hersperger ( 1994 ), this paper conducted a critical review of the recent development of landscape ecological concepts in planning. It is set to identify the major landscape ecological concepts that have been used frequently by the scientific community in recent years, to explore the causes for their wide usages, and to understand how they may be integrated into different steps of the planning process. To identify the key concepts, we analyzed a total of 1918 empirical and overview papers that have been published in four key academic journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning from 2015 to 2019. To examine the integration of key concepts into planning, we further identified 84 papers from our 1918 paper sample and used them to evaluate how each concept has been integrated into each planning step. Our main findings are the following.

First, while some of the concepts emerged in the early 1990s have remained popular, additional concepts have risen to be frequently used in recent years. Out of the eight promising concepts at the beginning of the 1990s, four have remained pervasive in recent publications, namely Structure , Function , Change and Scale . Meanwhile, three additional concepts, i.e., Landscape as human experience , Land use and Landscape and ecosystem services , are widely used in today`s publications, followed by Green infrastructure and Landscape resilience . While the early concepts leading in usage have been used to examine and evaluate patterns and processes of landscapes, newer concepts emphasize more the use of landscapes for human benefits.

Second, our analysis shows that landscape ecological concepts have not achieved deep integration into the planning process. Out of six planning steps, landscape ecological concepts have been often used in the Analysis and rarely in Goal establishment and Monitoring. Out of all 13 major concepts, Structure is mentioned the most as part of the planning process, followed by Land use , and Landscape as human experience .

The limited number of publications on connecting landscape ecology concepts with all steps of the planning process implied not only a disciplinary division between the fields of landscape ecology and planning but also the current limitation of publication tradition of academic journals. More dialogues between the disciplines are to be encouraged and more publication options can be explored. We emphasized that landscape ecological concepts have great potential to support the planning process, as illustrated by a variety of examples found in the literature. Future studies may include planning-practice oriented journals and landscape projects to more broadly assess the integration of concepts into all key steps of the planning process.

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Acknowledgement

We thank Simona Bacău for her support with the data analysis and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. BPD acknowledges the support by her Swiss Government Excellence Scholarship, and AMH acknowledges the support of part of this research through the Swiss National Science Foundation Consolidator Grant BSCGIO 157789.

Open Access funding provided by WSL - Eidgenössische Forschungsanstalt für Wald, Schnee und Landschaft.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Ahern J (1999) Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Klopatek JM and Gardner RH (eds), Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp. 175–201
• Ahern J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecol. 2013; 28 (6):1203–1212. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Albert C, Schröter B, Haase D, et al. Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landsc Urban Plan. 2019; 182 :12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aletta F, Kang J, Axelsson Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016; 149 :65–74. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allan TFH, Starr TB. Hierarchies: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982. [ Google Scholar ]
• Babí Almenar J, Rugani B, Geneletti D, Brewer T. Integration of ecosystem services into a conceptual spatial planning framework based on a landscape ecology perspective. Landsc Ecol. 2018; 33 (12):2047–2059. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0727-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beller EE, Spotswood EN, Robinson AH, et al. Building ecological resilience in highly modified landscapes. Bioscience. 2018; 69 (1):80–92. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biy117. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Benedict MA, McMahon ET. Green infrastructure: linking landscapes and communities. Washington DC: Island Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bjärstig T, Thellbro C, Stjernström O, et al. Between protocol and reality – Swedish municipal comprehensive planning. Eur Plann Stud. 2018; 26 (1):35–54. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1365819. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bolliger J, Bättig M, Gallati J, Kläy A, Stauffacher M, Kienast F. Landscape multifunctionality: a powerful concept to identify effects of environmental change. Reg Environ Change. 2011; 11 (1):203–206. doi: 10.1007/s10113-010-0185-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botequillha Leitao A, Ahern J. Applying landscape ecological concepts and metrics in sustainable landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2002; 59 :65–93. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00005-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Botkin DB. discordant harmonies: a new ecology for the twenty-first century. New York: Oxford University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cartwright TJ. Planning and chaos theory. J Am Plann Assoc. 1991; 57 (1):44–56. doi: 10.1080/01944369108975471. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cocklin C, Dibden J, Mautner N. From market to multifunctionality? Land stewardship in Australia. Geograph J. 2006; 172 (3):197–205. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4959.2006.00206.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Collier MJ. Novel ecosystems and social-ecological resilience. Landsc Ecol. 2015; 30 (8):1363–1369. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0243-z. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Merriam-Webster (2020). “Concept”. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concept . Accessed 30 June 2020.
• Costanza JK, Terando AJ. Landscape connectivity planning for adaptation to future climate and land-use change. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2019; 4 (1):1–13. doi: 10.1007/s40823-019-0035-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Dorning MA, Van Berkel DB, Semmens DJ. Integrating spatially explicit representations of landscape perceptions into land change research. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2017; 2 (3):73–88. doi: 10.1007/s40823-017-0025-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Downes M, Lange E. What you see is not always what you get: a qualitative, comparative analysis of ex ante visualizations with ex post photography of landscape and architectural projects. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015; 142 :136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.06.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• FAO (1997) Africover Land Cover Classification, Rome
• Fischer AP. Forest landscapes as social-ecological systems and implications for management. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 177 :138–147. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Foo K, McCarthy J, Bebbington A. Activating landscape ecology: a governance framework for design-in-science. Landsc Ecol. 2018; 33 (5):675–689. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0630-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman RTT. The ethics of isolation, the spread of disturbance, and landscape ecology. In: Turner MG, editor. Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. New York: Springer; 1987. pp. 213–229. [ Google Scholar ]
• Forman RTT (2008) Urban regions: ecology and planning beyond the city. Cambridge University Press Cambridge
• Forman RTT, Godron M. Landscape ecology. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1986. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gagné SA, Eigenbrod F, Bert DG, et al. A simple landscape design framework for biodiversity conservation. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015; 136 :13–27. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.11.006. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G. The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol. 2007; 22 (7):959–972. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Godfree R, Firn J, Johnson S, Knerr N, Stol J, Doerr V. Why non-native grasses pose a critical emerging threat to biodiversity conservation, habitat connectivity and agricultural production in multifunctional rural landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2017; 32 (6):1219–1242. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grădinaru SR, Fan P, Iojă CI, Niă MR, Suditu B, Hersperger AM. Impact of national policies on patterns of built-up development: an assessment over three decades. Land Use Policy. 2020; 94 :104510. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104510. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hersperger AM. Landscape ecology and its potential application to planning. Journal of Planning Literature. 1994; 9 (1):15–29. doi: 10.1177/088541229400900102. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hersperger AM. Spatial adjacencies and interactions: Neighborhood mosaics for landscape ecological planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2006; 77 (3):227–239. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.009. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hersperger AM, Bürgi M, Wende W, Bacău S, Grădinaru SR. Does landscape play a role in strategic spatial planning of European urban regions? Landsc Urban Plan. 2020; 194 :103702. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.103702. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hessburg PF, Churchill DJ, Larson AJ, et al. Restoring fire-prone Inland Pacific landscapes: seven core principles. Landsc Ecol. 2015; 30 (10):1805–1835. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holling CS. Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annu Rev Ecol Syst. 1973; 4 (1):1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Holling CS. Understanding the Complexity of Economic, Ecological, and Social Systems. Ecosystems. 2001; 4 (5):390–405. doi: 10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kaplan S. The restorative benefits of nature: toward an integrative framework. J Environ Psychol. 1995; 15 (3):169–182. doi: 10.1016/0272-4944(95)90001-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Karimi A, Hockings M. A social-ecological approach to land-use conflict to inform regional and conservation planning and management. Landsc Ecol. 2018; 33 (5):691–710. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0636-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Keller R, Backhaus N. Integrating landscape services into policy and practice – a case study from Switzerland. Landsc Res. 2020; 45 (1):111–122. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2019.1569218. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• König HJ, Kiffner C, Kramer-Schadt S, Fürst C, Keuling O, Ford AT. Human–wildlife coexistence in a changing world. Conserv Biol. 2020; 34 (4):786–794. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13513. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Le QB, Seidl R, Scholz RW. Feedback loops and types of adaptation in the modelling of land-use decisions in an agent-based simulation. Environmental Modelling & Software. 2012; 27–28 :83–96. doi: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2011.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• LeBeau B (2019) R Package “pdfsearch”. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pdfsearch/pdfsearch.pdf
• Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, et al. Coupled human and natural systems. AMBIO: J Human Environ. 2007; 36 (8):639–649. doi: 10.1579/0044-7447(2007)36[639:CHANS]2.0.CO;2. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmoudi Farahani L, Maller C, Phelan K. Private gardens as urban greenspaces: can they compensate for poor greenspace access in lower socioeconomic neighbourhoods? Landsc Online. 2018; 59 :1–18. doi: 10.3097/LO.201859. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mahmoudi Farahani L, Maller CJ. Perceptions and preferences of urban greenspaces: a literature review and framework for policy and practice. Landsc Online. 2018; 61 :1–22. doi: 10.3097/LO.201861. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mann C, Garcia-Martin M, Raymond CM, Shaw BJ, Plieninger T. The potential for integrated landscape management to fulfil Europe’s commitments to the sustainable development goals. Landsc Urban Plan. 2018; 177 :75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.04.017. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayer AL, Buma B, Davis A, et al. How landscape ecology informs global land-change science and policy. Bioscience. 2016; 66 (6):458–469. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biw035. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Meentemeyer V, Box EO. Scale effects in landscape studies. In: Turner MG, editor. Landscape heterogeneity and disturbance. New York: Springer; 1987. pp. 15–34. [ Google Scholar ]
• Meyer SR, Beard K, Cronan CS, Lilieholm RJ. An analysis of spatio-temporal landscape patterns for protected areas in northern New England: 1900–2010. Landsc Ecol. 2015; 30 (7):1291–1305. doi: 10.1007/s10980-015-0184-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miklós L, Spinerová A (2019) Landscape-ecological Planning LANEP. Springer
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington DC: Island Press; 2005. [ Google Scholar ]
• Milovanović A, Milovanović Rodić D, Maruna M. Eighty-year review of the evolution of landscape ecology: from a spatial planning perspective. Landsc Ecol. 2020; 35 (10):2141–2161. doi: 10.1007/s10980-020-01102-9. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Miyasaka T, Le QB, Okuro T, Zhao X, Takeuchi K. Agent-based modeling of complex social–ecological feedback loops to assess multi-dimensional trade-offs in dryland ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol. 2017; 32 (4):707–727. doi: 10.1007/s10980-017-0495-x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mock G, Salvemini D. Assessing Landscape Resilience: Best Practices and Lessons Learned from the COMDEKS Programme. New York: United Nations Development Programme; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLOS Mede. 2009; 6 (7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Musacchio LR. Ecologies as a complement to ecosystem services? Exploring how landscape planners might advance understanding about human–nature relationships in changing landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2018; 33 (6):847–860. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0646-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Nassauer JI, Opdam P. Design in science: extending the landscape ecology paradigm. Landsc Ecol. 2008; 23 (6):633–644. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9226-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Naveh Z, Lieberman AS. Landscape ecology: Theory and application. New York: Springer; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton BA, Coutts AM, Livesley SJ, Harris RJ, Hunter AM, Williams NSG. Planning for cooler cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan. 2015; 134 :127–138. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.10.018. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Norton BA, Evans KL, Warren PH. Urban biodiversity and landscape ecology: patterns, processes and planning. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2016; 1 (4):178–192. doi: 10.1007/s40823-016-0018-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Oliveira E, Hersperger AM. Disentangling the governance configurations of strategic spatial plan-making in european urban regions. Plann Pract Res. 2019; 34 (1):47–61. doi: 10.1080/02697459.2018.1548218. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Opdam P, Nassauer JI, Wang Z, et al. Science for action at the local landscape scale. Landscape Ecol. 2013; 28 (8):1439–1445. doi: 10.1007/s10980-013-9925-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Otte A, Simmering D, Wolters V. Biodiversity at the landscape level: recent concepts and perspectives for multifunctional land use. Landscape Ecol. 2007; 22 (5):639–642. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9094-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pedroli B, Pinto-Correia T, Cornish P. Landscape - what's in it? Trends in European landscape science and priority themes for concerted research. Landscape Ecol. 2006; 21 (3):421–430. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-5204-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pinto-Correia T, Kristensen L. Linking research to practice: the landscape as the basis for integrating social and ecological perspectives of the rural. Landsc Urban Plann. 2013; 120 :248–256. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.07.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/ .
• Reed J, Van Vianen J, Deakin EL, Barlow J, Sunderland T. Integrated landscape approaches to managing social and environmental issues in the tropics: learning from the past to guide the future. Glob Change Biol. 2016; 22 (7):2540–2554. doi: 10.1111/gcb.13284. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schippers P, van der Heide CM, Koelewijn HP, et al. Landscape diversity enhances the resilience of populations, ecosystems and local economy in rural areas. Landscape Ecol. 2015; 30 (2):193–202. doi: 10.1007/s10980-014-0136-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Selman P. Planning for landscape multifunctionality. Sustain Sci Pract Policy. 2009; 5 (2):45–52. [ Google Scholar ]
• Selman P. Sustainable Landscape Planning: The Reconnection Agenda. London: Taylor & Francis; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Siedentop S, Fina S, Krehl A. Greenbelts in Germany's regional plans-An effective growth management policy? Lands Urban Plann. 2016; 145 :71–82. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.09.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Smuts JC. Holism and evolution. London: MacMillan; 1926. [ Google Scholar ]
• Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Lands Urban Plann. 2012; 104 (1):124–134. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Spyra M, Kleemann J, Cetin NI, et al. The ecosystem services concept: a new Esperanto to facilitate participatory planning processes? Landsc Ecol. 2019; 34 (7):1715–1735. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0745-6. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner F. An ecological approach to landscape planning. Washington: Island Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. esri, Redlands, CA
• Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P. Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol. 2009; 24 (8):1037–1052. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P, van den Brink A. Incorporating ecological sustainability into landscape planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007; 79 :374–384. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Trammell EJ, Carter S, Haby TS, Taylor JJ. Evidence and opportunities for integrating landscape ecology into natural resource planning across multiple-use landscapes. Curr Landsc Ecol Rep. 2018; 3 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s40823-018-0029-5. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Turner MG, Gardner RH, O’Neill RV. Landscape ecology in theory and practice: Pattern and process. New York: Springer; 2001. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzoulas K, Korpela K, Venn S, et al. Promoting ecosystem and human health in urban areas using Green Infrastructure: a literature review. Landsc Urban Plan. 2007; 81 (3):167–178. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.02.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Urban DL, O'Neill RV, Shugart HHJ. Landscape ecology: a hierarchical perspective can help scientists understand spatial patterns. Bioscience. 1987; 37 (2):119–127. doi: 10.2307/1310366. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van der Sluis T, Pedroli B, Frederiksen P, et al. The impact of European landscape transitions on the provision of landscape services: an explorative study using six cases of rural land change. Landsc Ecol. 2019; 34 (2):307–323. doi: 10.1007/s10980-018-0765-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verburg PH, Crossman N, Ellis EC, et al. Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: A global land project perspective. Anthropocene. 2015; 12 :29–41. doi: 10.1016/j.ancene.2015.09.004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Vialatte A, Barnaud C, Blanco J, et al. A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Landsc Ecol. 2019; 34 (7):1653–1673. doi: 10.1007/s10980-019-00829-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang X, Palazzo D, Carper M. Ecological wisdom as an emerging field of scholarly inquiry in urban planning and design. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016; 155 :100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.019. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang Y, Dawson R, Han D, Peng J, Liu Z, Ding Y. Landscape ecological planning and design of degraded mining land. Land Degrad Dev. 2001; 12 (5):449–459. doi: 10.1002/ldr.462. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ward Thompson C, Roe J, Aspinall P, Mitchell R, Clow A, Miller D. More green space is linked to less stress in deprived communities: Evidence from salivary cortisol patterns. Landsc Urban Plan. 2012; 105 (3):221–229. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.12.015. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu J. Key concepts and research topics in landscape ecology revisited: 30 years after the Allerton Park workshop. Landsc Ecol. 2013; 28 (1):1–11. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9836-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wu JG. Urban sustainability: an inevitable goal of landscape research. Landsc Ecol. 2010; 25 (1):1–4. doi: 10.1007/s10980-009-9444-7. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Young RF. Modernity, postmodernity, and ecological wisdom: toward a new framework for landscape and urban planning. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016; 155 :91–99. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.04.012. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zanzanaini C, Tran BT, Singh C, Hart A, Milder J, DeClerck F. Integrated landscape initiatives for agriculture, livelihoods and ecosystem conservation: an assessment of experiences from South and Southeast Asia. Landsc Urban Plan. 2017; 165 :11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.03.010. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou B-B, Wu J, Anderies JM. Sustainable landscapes and landscape sustainability: a tale of two concepts. Landsc Urban Plan. 2019; 189 :274–284. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2019.05.005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zhou W, Pickett STA, Cadenasso ML. Shifting concepts of urban spatial heterogeneity and their implications for sustainability. Landsc Ecol. 2017; 32 (1):15–30. doi: 10.1007/s10980-016-0432-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zonneveld IS (1990) Scope and concepts of landscape ecology as an emerging science. In: Zonneveld IS and Forman RTT (eds), Changing landscapes: An ecological perspective. Springer, New York, pp. 3–20

• DOI: 10.1016/0169-2046(86)90022-8
• Corpus ID: 87682464

Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

• Published 1986
• Environmental Science, Geography
• Landscape and Urban Planning

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

Landscape ecological concepts in planning: review of recent developments

Affiliations.

• 1 Head of Land Use Systems Group, Land Change Science Research Unit, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903 Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
• 2 Centre for Environmental Research and Impact Studies, University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania.
• 3 Land Change Science Research Unit, Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL, Zurich, Switzerland.
• 4 School of Planning, Design, and Construction and Center for Global Change and Earth Observations, Michigan State University, Michigan, USA.
• PMID: 34720410
• PMCID: PMC8549942
• DOI: 10.1007/s10980-021-01193-y

Context: Landscape ecology as an interdisciplinary science has great potential to inform landscape planning, an integrated, collaborative practice on a regional scale. It is commonly assumed that landscape ecological concepts play a key role in this quest.

Objectives: The aim of the paper is to identify landscape ecological concepts that are currently receiving attention in the scientific literature, analyze the prevalence of these concepts and understand how these concepts can inform the steps of the planning processes, from goal establishment to monitoring.

Methods: We analyzed all empirical and overview papers that have been published in four key academic journals in the field of landscape ecology and landscape planning in the years 2015-2019 (n = 1918). Title, abstract and keywords of all papers were read in order to identify landscape ecological concepts. A keyword search was applied to identify the use of these and previously mentioned concepts in common steps of the planning cycle.

Results: The concepts Structure , Function , Change , Scale , Landscape as human experience , Land use , Landscape and ecosystem services , Green infrastructure , and Landscape resilience were prominently represented in the analyzed literature. Landscape ecological concepts were most often mentioned in context of the landscape analysis steps and least in context of goal establishment and monitoring.

Conclusions: The current literature spots landscape ecological concepts with great potential to support landscape planning. However, future studies need to address directly how these concepts can inform all steps in the planning process.

Supplementary information: The online version of this article (10.1007/s10980-021-01193-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Keywords: Bibliographic analysis; Ecosystem services; Green infrastructure; Landscape ecology; Landscape perception; Landscape services; Multifunctionality; Resilience; Sense of place; Socio-ecological systems.

© The Author(s) 2021.

PubMed Disclaimer

Number of times a concept…

Number of times a concept was used in the 1918 papers published in…

Share in the use of…

Share in the use of each concept by the journals Current Landscape Ecology…

Average number of times a…

Average number of times a concept was used in a single publication by…

Number of times landscape ecological…

Number of times landscape ecological concepts were addressed in planning steps in the…

Similar articles

• Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia. Osborne SR, Alston LV, Bolton KA, Whelan J, Reeve E, Wong Shee A, Browne J, Walker T, Versace VL, Allender S, Nichols M, Backholer K, Goodwin N, Lewis S, Dalton H, Prael G, Curtin M, Brooks R, Verdon S, Crockett J, Hodgins G, Walsh S, Lyle DM, Thompson SC, Browne LJ, Knight S, Pit SW, Jones M, Gillam MH, Leach MJ, Gonzalez-Chica DA, Muyambi K, Eshetie T, Tran K, May E, Lieschke G, Parker V, Smith A, Hayes C, Dunlop AJ, Rajappa H, White R, Oakley P, Holliday S. Osborne SR, et al. Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
• Benefits and challenges of linking green infrastructure and highway planning in the United States. Marcucci DJ, Jordan LM. Marcucci DJ, et al. Environ Manage. 2013 Jan;51(1):182-97. doi: 10.1007/s00267-012-9966-7. Epub 2012 Nov 8. Environ Manage. 2013. PMID: 23135391
• Assessing experienced tranquillity through natural language processing and landscape ecology measures. Wartmann FM, Koblet O, Purves RS. Wartmann FM, et al. Landsc Ecol. 2021;36(8):2347-2365. doi: 10.1007/s10980-020-01181-8. Epub 2021 Jan 27. Landsc Ecol. 2021. PMID: 34720411 Free PMC article.
• From multifunctionality to multiple ecosystem services? A conceptual framework for multifunctionality in green infrastructure planning for urban areas. Hansen R, Pauleit S. Hansen R, et al. Ambio. 2014 May;43(4):516-29. doi: 10.1007/s13280-014-0510-2. Ambio. 2014. PMID: 24740622 Free PMC article. Review.
• [Representation, analysis and application of landscape graph based on graph theory]. Song LL, Qin MZ, Zhang PY, Xia YF, Ma J, Cao W. Song LL, et al. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2020 Oct;31(10):3579-3588. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202010.014. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2020. PMID: 33314849 Review. Chinese.
• Applying Landscape Ecology in Local Planning, Some Experiences. Eikaas IL, Roussel H, Thorén AH, Dramstad WE. Eikaas IL, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 15;20(4):3410. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20043410. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023. PMID: 36834103 Free PMC article.
• Does Increasing Farm Plot Size Influence the Visual Quality of Everyday Agricultural Landscapes? Janeckova Molnarova K, Bohnet IC, Svobodova K, Černý Pixová K, Daniels M, Skaloš J, Drhlíková K, Azadi H, Zámečník R, Sklenička P. Janeckova Molnarova K, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 30;20(1):687. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010687. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36613007 Free PMC article.
• Landscape Changes and Optimization in an Ecological Red Line Area: A Case Study in the Upper Reaches of the Ganjiang River. Liu G, Xiang A, Huang Y, Zha W, Chen Y, Mao B. Liu G, et al. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep 13;19(18):11530. doi: 10.3390/ijerph191811530. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36141800 Free PMC article.
• Zooscape ecology: a conceptual analysis of zoos and landscape ecology. Bisgrove D. Bisgrove D. Landsc Ecol. 2022;37(7):1733-1745. doi: 10.1007/s10980-022-01433-9. Epub 2022 Jun 16. Landsc Ecol. 2022. PMID: 35729942 Free PMC article.
• Landscape ecology reaching out. Kienast F, Walters G, Bürgi M. Kienast F, et al. Landsc Ecol. 2021;36(8):2189-2198. doi: 10.1007/s10980-021-01301-y. Epub 2021 Jul 26. Landsc Ecol. 2021. PMID: 34334950 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
• Ahern J (1999) Spatial concepts, planning strategies, and future scenarios: a framework method for integrating landscape ecology and landscape planning. In: Klopatek JM and Gardner RH (eds), Landscape ecological analysis: issues and applications. Springer, New York, pp. 175–201
• Ahern J. Urban landscape sustainability and resilience: the promise and challenges of integrating ecology with urban planning and design. Landscape Ecol. 2013;28(6):1203–1212. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9799-z. - DOI
• Albert C, Schröter B, Haase D, et al. Addressing societal challenges through nature-based solutions: how can landscape planning and governance research contribute? Landsc Urban Plan. 2019;182:12–21. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.10.003. - DOI
• Aletta F, Kang J, Axelsson Ö. Soundscape descriptors and a conceptual framework for developing predictive soundscape models. Landsc Urban Plan. 2016;149:65–74. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.02.001. - DOI
• Allan TFH, Starr TB. Hierarchies: perspectives for ecological complexity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1982.

Related information

Linkout - more resources, full text sources.

• Europe PubMed Central
• PubMed Central
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Connectivity Conservation
• > Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature

Book contents

• Frontmatter
• List of contributors
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature
• PART I Approaches to connectivity research
• PART II Assessing connectivity
• PART III Challenges and implementation of connectivity conservation

1 - Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2010

For the first time in Earth's long history, one species – Homo sapiens – completely dominates the globe. Over 6 billion people now inhabit the planet, and that number is growing at an alarming rate. In sharp contrast to previous eras, we drive, fly, telephone, and e-communicate from even the most remote regions of Earth. With the aid of technology, no significant segment of our population is truly isolated. Today, it is possible to make a cell phone call from the Serengeti, or live “off the grid” from in-holdings within the midst of national forests or wilderness areas in North America. With the notable exception of weedy species that thrive amidst the disturbances we create, predictably, the more “connected” we become, non-human life with which we share this planet becomes increasingly disconnected.

The vast reach of humans and the resulting parcelization of natural landscapes are of major concern to conservation scientists. Indeed, horror stories about habitat fragmentation appear in every book about conservation biology, make appearances in high-school textbooks, and are featured regularly in our leading newspapers and magazines. And conservation biologists are not alone in their concern about massive habitat destruction and fragmentation. Members of the public also have been inspired to promote special efforts for connecting landscapes in our increasingly dissected world.

While the vision of connected landscapes may be compelling, the practice of preventing fragmentation and conserving connectivity is not a simple matter.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Connectivity conservation: maintaining connections for nature
• By Kevin R. Crooks , M. Sanjayan
• Edited by Kevin R. Crooks , Colorado State University , M. Sanjayan , The Nature Conservancy, Virginia
• Book: Connectivity Conservation
• Online publication: 24 May 2010
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511754821.001

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning

Proceedings of the first international seminar of the international association of landscape ecology (iale) organized at roskilde university centre, roskilde, denmark, october 15-19, 1984, by international seminar on methodology in ....

• 0 Want to read
• 0 Currently reading
• 0 Have read

My Reading Lists:

Use this Work

Create a new list

My book notes.

My private notes about this edition:

Check nearby libraries

• Library.link

Buy this book

This edition doesn't have a description yet. Can you add one ?

Showing 6 featured editions. View all 6 editions?

Add another edition?

Book Details

Edition notes, the physical object, source records, community reviews (0).

• Created October 25, 2008
• 2 revisions

Wikipedia citation

Copy and paste this code into your Wikipedia page. Need help?

Methodology in landscape ecological research and planning : proceedings of the first international seminar of the International association of landscape ecology (IALE) organized at Roskilde University centre Roskilde, Denmark, October 15-19 1984

Published December 14, 2017

Top Stories

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Recommended Articles
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Integrating technological environmental design and energy interventions in the residential building stock: the pilot case of the small island procida.

1. Introduction

2. materials and methods, 2.1. analytical phase, 2.2. applicative phase, 2.3. evaluative phase, 3. results and discussion, 3.1. application of the research method to the pilot case of procida island.

• The lack of modification of openings: existing openings cannot be enlarged or reduced in size;
• Material restrictions: frame materials are restricted to wood only, and aluminum and PVC are not permitted;
• Paint requirements: wood frames must be paintable and painted in colors specified by the Color Plan (Piano Colori);
• Glass specifications: any thickness of smooth glass or crystal can be used.
• Historic center: the chosen solution is double glazing with low-emissivity coating and an argon-filled cavity (90% filled);
• Marina di Sancio Cattolico: the selected option is triple glazing, also with low-emissivity coating and argon-filled cavities (90% filled).

3.2. Discussion of the Results

• Scenario #1 : wall and roof insulation;
• Scenario #2 : wall and roof insulation + window replacement;
• Scenario #3 : wall and roof insulation + window replacement + system replacement;
• Scenario #4 : wall and roof insulation + window replacement + system replacement + photovoltaic system installation.
• This research introduces an innovative approach through the use of aggregated data and archetypal analysis for large-scale territorial evaluations, improving precision and scalability in energy efficiency interventions;
• A custom software system was developed to consolidate and analyze data from 2961 residential buildings on Procida, providing insights into the island’s diverse architectural and environmental contexts;
• An aggregated data analysis identified patterns and correlations that individual assessments may have overlooked, offering a macro-level perspective crucial for scalable, urban-wide solutions;
• The archetypal analysis groups buildings into representative types based on their structural and environmental features, enabling tailored and targeted energy intervention strategies;
• These approaches establish a strong framework for optimizing energy consumption and fostering energy self-sufficiency on a larger scale, particularly in residential settings;
• The proposed solutions are context-specific and scalable, contributing to broader environmental sustainability goals.

4. Conclusions

• A significant performance improvement is observed with the replacement of building systems;
• The annual reduction in local emissions, which is closely linked to primary energy demand reduction, is slightly higher for the first two interventions;
• The largest improvements come from installing photovoltaic systems and integrating renewable energies;
• Combined interventions lead to a 67% reduction in local emissions, promoting environmental sustainability;
• Primary interventions include thermal insulation and system replacement;
• Secondary interventions involve photovoltaic systems and energy storage;
• A holistic approach to building redevelopment, integrating technological and environmental solutions, is crucial for energy efficiency.
• The future research directions proposed are as follows:
• Advancements in renewable energy integration could impact costs, returns on investments, and savings;
• Innovations in building materials and energy systems may lower initial costs, with economies of scale and better financial models optimizing returns on investments;
• Future studies should quantify savings from advanced retrofitting techniques and emerging technologies, like smart grids;
• Environmental impact studies should further assess reductions in energy demand and emissions;
• The longitudinal monitoring of energy performance will help to assess long-term intervention effectiveness and sustainability;
• Research should also explore the economic and social impacts on property values, local economies, and quality of life;
• The integration of advanced building materials and smart energy systems should be further explored;
• Aligning energy efficiency initiatives with urban planning strategies could lead to comprehensive sustainability outcomes.

Author Contributions

Institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.

• World Economic Forum. The Global Risks Report 2024—19th Edition—Insight Report. Cologne. 2024. Available online: https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_The_Global_Risks_Report_2024.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• United Nations Environment Programme. Emissions Gap Report 2022: The Closing Window—Climate Crisis Calls for Rapid Transformation of Societies. Nairobi. 2022. Available online: https://www.unep.org/emissions-gap-report-2022 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• World Green Building Council. Global Policy Principles for a Sustainable Built Environment. London. 2023. Available online: https://worldgbc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/WorldGBC-Global-Policy-Principles_FINAL.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• World Economic Forum. The Building Sector Is Key to the Fight Against Climate Change ; World Economic Forum: Cologny, Switzerland, 2024. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Furini, G.L. Climate change and human health linkages in the context of globalization: An overview from global to southwestern coastal region of Bangladesh. Environ. Int. 2019 , 127 , 402–411. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Zhang, Y.; Wang, C.H.; Davies, H.A. Net-zero energy buildings: The integration of renewable energy sources and efficient design strategies. Renew. Energy 2021 , 164 , 1131–1145. [ Google Scholar ]
• Albadry, S.; Tarabieh, K.; Sewilam, H. Achieving Net Zero-Energy Buildings through Retrofitting Existing Residential Buildings Using PV Panels. Energy Procedia 2017 , 115 , 195–204. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• World Green Building Council. Beyond Buildings. Why An Integrated Approach to Buildings and Infrastructure Is Essential for Climate Action and Sustainable Development. London. 2021. Available online: https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/10190455/Beyond-Buildings_reduced_compressed.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Romano, G.; Mancini, F. Transformation of a historical building into a Nearly Zero Energy Building (nZEB). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2022 , 2385 , 012008. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• United Nations Environment Programme. Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Beyond Foundations: Mainstreaming Sustainable Solutions to Cut Emissions from the Buildings Sector. Nairobi. 2024. Available online: https://www.unep.org/resources/report/global-status-report-buildings-and-construction (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Zhang, R.; Yin, L.; Jia, J.; Yin, Y. Application of ATS-GWIFBM Operator Based on Improved Time Entropy in Green Building Projects. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2019 , 2019 , 3519195. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• REN21. Renewables 2024 Global Status Report. 2024. Available online: https://www.lerenovaveis.org/contents/lerpublication/2024_abr_ren21_renewables-2024--global-status-report.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• EC; Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament; the European Council; the Council; the European Economic and Social Committee; the Committee of the Regions. The European Green Deal. COM(2019) 640 Final, Bruxelles. 2019. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:b828d165-1c22-11ea-8c1f-01aa75ed71a1.0006.02/DOC_1&format=PDF (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Haas, R.; Rainer, K.R.; Kecskés, H.R.B. Achieving 2030 targets: The role of national energy and climate plans in EU member states. Energy Rep. 2022 , 8 , 109–124. [ Google Scholar ]
• MiSE; MATTM; MIT. Piano Nazionale Integrato per l’Energia e il Clima, Roma. 2020. Available online: https://www.mimit.gov.it/images/stories/documenti/PNIEC_finale_17012020.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Baroni, G.; Manzolini, M.; Gattari, V. Piano Nazionale Integrato per l’Energia e il Clima: Analisi delle misure per la sostenibilità energetica e ambientale in Italia. Riv. Ital. Energ. 2020 , 37 , 112–129. [ Google Scholar ]
• Civita, M.; Giacobazzi, L.D.; Bolognini, T. Le Politiche Energetiche Italiane Verso il 2030: Un’analisi del PNIEC e dei Suoi Impatti. 2022. Available online: https://www.fondazionesvilupposostenibile.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/PNIEC-analisi-preliminare-Stakeholder-Forum-I4C-20-luglio.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Camera dei Deputati Servizio Studi XVIII Legislatura. Il Piano Nazionale di Ripresa e Resilienza (PNRR), Roma. 2022. Available online: https://www.governo.it/sites/governo.it/files/PNRR.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Sartori, I.; Sechi, P.L.; Castaldi, G. Il Piano Nazionale Integrato per l’Energia e il Clima: Obiettivi e Misure per il 2030 in Italia. 2021. Available online: https://www.efficienzaenergetica.enea.it/glossario-efficienza-energetica/lettera-p/piano-nazionale-integrato-per-l-energia-e-il-clima-2030-pniec.html (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• López, A.; Pardo, F. National Integrated Energy and Climate Plans: An analysis of European Union member states’ strategies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020 , 127 , 109847. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moschetti, R.; Brattebø, H. Sustainable Business Models for Deep Energy Retrofitting of Buildings: State-of-the-art and Methodological Approach. Energy Procedia 2016 , 96 , 435–445. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ge, J.; Wang, Y.; Zhou, D.; Gu, Z.; Meng, X. Effects of urban vegetation on microclimate and building energy demand in winter—An evaluation using coupled simulations. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024 , 102 , 105199. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• OJEU. Directive (EU) 2018/844 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2018 Amending Directive 2010/31/EU on the Energy Performance of Buildings and Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency—L 156/75 of 19.6.2018. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L0844 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• OJEU. Directive (EU) 2018/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 Amending Directive 2012/27/EU on Energy Efficiency—L 328/210 of 21.12.2018. 2018. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32018L2002 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• IEA. Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. 2021. Available online: https://iea.blob.core.windows.net/assets/deebef5d-0c34-4539-9d0c-10b13d840027/NetZeroby2050-ARoadmapfortheGlobalEnergySector_CORR.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Georgakopoulos, D.; Schuster, H.; Baker, D.; Cichocki, A. Managing escalation of collaboration processes in crisis mitigation situations. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Data Engineering (Cat. No.00CB37073), San Diego, CA, USA, 29 February–3 March 2000; pp. 45–56. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mousazadeh, H.; Sadeghi, M.M.; Ahmed, R.S. Advancements in smart grid technologies and their impact on local renewable energy adoption and emissions reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2022 , 335 , 130261. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sovacool, B.K.; Baum, C.M.; Low, S.; Roberts, C.; Steinhauser, J. Climate policy for a net-zero future: Ten recommendations for Direct Air Capture. Environ. Res. Lett. 2022 , 17 , 074014. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Hesslerová, P.; Pokorný, J.; Huryna, H.; Seják, J.; Jirka, V. The impacts of greenery on urban climate and the options for use of thermal data in urban areas. Prog. Plan. 2022 , 159 , 100545. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Madushika, U.G.D.; Ramachandra, T.; Karunasena, G.; Udakara, P.A.D.S. Energy retrofitting technologies of buildings: A review-based assessment. Energies 2023 , 16 , 4924. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Miller, W.; Thornton, P.T. Comprehensive renovation strategies for existing buildings: From energy efficiency to zero emissions. J. Build. Perform. 2021 , 12 , 66–81. [ Google Scholar ]
• Tucci, F.; Altamura, P.; Cecafosso, V.; Turchetti, G.; Giampaoletti, M.; Nava, F.; Pani, M.M.; Romano, G.; Tulelli, V.; Dalsasso, C.; et al. Rapporto “Verso la Neutralità Climatica Delle Green City: Approcci, Indirizzi, Strategie e Azioni”, Sapienza Università di Roma, Roma. 2021. Available online: https://www.greencitynetwork.it/wp-content/uploads/stati_generali_green_economy_La_neutralita_climatica_delle_citta.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Ma, K.; Yu, Y.; Yang, B.; Yang, J. Demand-Side Energy Management Considering Price Oscillations for Residential Building Heating and Ventilation Systems. IEEE Trans. Ind. Inform. 2019 , 15 , 4742–4752. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Baiani, S.; Altamura, P.; Turchetti, G.; Romano, G. Transizione Energetica e Circolare del Patrimonio Industriale. Il Caso Dell’ex SNIA a Roma/Energy and Circular Transition of the Industrial Heritage. The Ex SNIA case in Rome. Agathón 2024 , 15 , 190–203. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cappelletti, F.; Dalla Mora, T.; Peron, F.; Romagnoni, P.; Ruggeri, P. Building renovation: Which kind of guidelines could be proposed for policy makers and professional owners? Energy Procedia 2015 , 78 , 2366–2371. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Centro Ricerche Economiche, Sociologiche e di Mercato nell’Edilizia (CRESME). Incentivi e Riduzione del Rischio Sismico in Italia, Cosa Fare, Come Fare. 2018. Available online: https://www.cresme.it/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Italia_Antisismica_abstract.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• OJEU. Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions ‘Fit for 55’: Delivering the EU’s 2030 Climate Target on the Way to Climate Neutrality—COM(2021) 550 Final, Bruxelles. 2021. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A52021DC0550 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• OJEU (2024), Directive (EU) 2024/1275 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 April 2024 on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast), 2024/1275. Bruxelles. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L_202401275 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Bellocchi, S.; De Falco, M.; Gambini, M.; Manno, M.; Stilo, T.; Vellini, M. Opportunities for power-to-Gas and Power-to-liquid in CO2-reduced energy scenarios: The Italian case. Energy 2019 , 175 , 847–861. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• MITE. Dipartimento Energia—Direzione Generale Infrastrutture E Sicurezza—La situazione energetica nazionale nel 2021, Roma. Available online: https://dgsaie.mise.gov.it/pub/sen/relazioni/relazione_annuale_situazione_energetica _nazionale_dati _2021.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• REN21. Renewables 2022 Global Status Report. REN21 Secretariat c/o UN Environment Programme, Paris. 2022. Available online: https://www.ren21.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/GSR2022_Full_Report.pdf (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• King, R.; Vullnetari, J. From shortage economy to second economy. J. Rural. Stud. 2016 , 44 , 198–207. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Gonzalez Benson, O.; Smith, R.; Song, C. Resettlement cities: A mixture model analysis of the dispersion and placement strategy. Cities 2022 , 126 , 103698. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ahmed, S.; Ali, A.; D’Angola, A. A Review of Renewable Energy Communities: Concepts, Scope, Progress, Challenges, and Recommendations. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 1749. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Genave, A.; Blancard, S.; Garabedian, S. An assessment of energy vulnerability in Small Island Developing States. Ecol. Econ. 2020 , 171 , 106595. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elahee, K. Energy Management Challenges in a Small Island Economy. Energy Environ. 2010 , 21 , 803–813. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Battistelli, F.; Messina, A.; Tomassetti, L.; Montiroli, C.; Manzo, E.; Torre, M.; Tratzi, P.; Segreto, M.; Chu, C.-Y.; Paolini, V.; et al. Assessment of Energy, Mobility, Waste, and Water Management on Italian Small Islands. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 11490. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Corsini, A.; Delibra, G.; Pizzuti, I.; Tajalli-Ardekani, E. Challenges of renewable energy communities on small Mediterranean islands: A case study on Ponza island. Renew. Energy 2023 , 215 , 118986. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Leal Filho, W.; Balogun, A.-L.; Surroop, D.; Salvia, A.L.; Narula, K.; Li, C.; Hunt, J.D.; Gatto, A.; Sharifi, A.; Feng, H.; et al. Realising the Potential of Renewable Energy as a Tool for Energy Security in Small Island Developing States. Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 4965. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Romano, G.; Baiani, S.; Mancini, F. Energy Consumption Profile. Profilo di Consumo Energetico. Google Docs. Available online: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeNhaE08Z8wVL_k9eWVmwAouT39VQ5qMabEJ_sk0CkUuTDKiQ/viewform (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Mancini, F.; Romano, S.; Lo Basso, G.; Cimaglia, J.; De Santoli, L. How the Italian Residential Sector Could Contribute to Load Flexibility in Demand Response Activities: A Methodology for Residential Clustering and Developing a Flexibility Strategy. Energies 2020 , 13 , 3359. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Suomalainen, K.; Eyers, D.; Ford, R.; Stephenson, J.; Anderson, B.; Jack, M. Detailed comparison of energy-related time-use diaries and monitored residential electricity demand. Energy Build. 2019 , 183 , 418–427. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Soto, A.M.; Jentsch, M.F. Comparison of prediction models for determining energy demand in the residential sector of a country. Energy Build. 2016 , 128 , 38–55. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• ARERA. Analisi dei Dati dei Clienti Domestici. Milano. 2022. Available online: https://www.arera.it/dati-e-statistiche/dettaglio/analisi-dei-consumi-dei-clienti-domestici (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Schweiker, M.; Shukuya, M. Comparison of theoretical and statistical models of air-conditioning-unit usage behaviour in a residential setting under Japanese climatic conditions. Build. Environ. 2009 , 44 , 2137–2149. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Ren, X.; Yan, D.; Wang, C. Air-conditioning usage conditional probability model for residential buildings. Build. Environ. 2014 , 81 , 172–182. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Cosenza, G. Gli Spazi Dell’architettura di Procida , 1st ed.; N. 8698 BIS.; Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane: Napoli, Italy, 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Muro, G.; Muro, V.; Ridda, L. Piano del Colore dei Centri Storici Dell’isola di Procida di Primo Ambito ; Procida: Napoli, Italy, 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fellella, F.; Ambrosino, R.; Perrella, S.; Rossello, C.; Stasi, A.; Squillante, R.; Massarotti, N.; Vanoli, L.; De Luca, G.; Fabozzi, S. Piano D’azione Per L’energia Sostenibile (PAES)—Comune di Procida (NA). 2015. Available online: https://www.paesitalia.it/azioni/?r=4 (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Miraglia, F. Atlante delle Tecniche Costruttive di Terra di Lavoro Murature in Tufo Grigio (XIII-XV) ; Armando Caramanica Editore: Marina di Minturno, Italy, 2018; ISBN 978-88-7425-110-0. [ Google Scholar ]
• GURI. DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 19 Agosto 2005, n. 192|Attuazione della Direttiva 2002/91/CE Relativa al Rendimento Energetico Nell’edilizia. (GU Serie Generale n.222 del 23-09-2005—Suppl. Ordinario n. 158). 2005. Available online: https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2005/09/23/005G0219/sg (accessed on 3 August 2024).
• Regione Campania. Rapporto Annuale Sulle Attestazioni di Prestazione Energetica (APE)|Indice di Prestazione Energetica Globale non Rinnovabile (EPgl,n_ren) Medio. 2023. Available online: https://www.regione.campania.it/regione/it/tematiche/certificazione-energetica-edifici-ape/rapporto-annuale-sulle-attestazioni-di-prestazione-energetica-ape?page=1 (accessed on 3 August 2024).

Click here to enlarge figure

Share and Cite

Romano, G.; Baiani, S.; Mancini, F. Integrating Technological Environmental Design and Energy Interventions in the Residential Building Stock: The Pilot Case of the Small Island Procida. Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 8071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188071

Romano G, Baiani S, Mancini F. Integrating Technological Environmental Design and Energy Interventions in the Residential Building Stock: The Pilot Case of the Small Island Procida. Sustainability . 2024; 16(18):8071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188071

Romano, Giada, Serena Baiani, and Francesco Mancini. 2024. "Integrating Technological Environmental Design and Energy Interventions in the Residential Building Stock: The Pilot Case of the Small Island Procida" Sustainability 16, no. 18: 8071. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16188071

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Surveying a Landscape of Ethics-Focused Design Methods

New Citation Alert added!

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, index terms.

Human-centered computing

Interaction design

Interaction design process and methods

Social and professional topics

Professional topics

Computing profession

Codes of ethics

Recommendations

Ethics pathways: a design activity for reflecting on ethics engagement in hci research.

This paper introduces Ethics Pathways, a design activity aimed at understanding HCI and design researchers’ ethics engagements and flows during their research process. Despite a strong ethical commitment in these fields, challenges persist in grasping ...

Scaffolding Ethics-Focused Methods for Practice Resonance

Numerous methods and tools have been proposed to motivate or support ethical awareness in design practice. However, many existing resources are not easily discoverable by practitioners, and are often framed using language that is not accessible or ...

Reprioritizing the relationship between HCI research and practice: bubble-up and trickle-down effects

There has been an ongoing conversation about the role and relationship of theory and practice in the HCI community. This paper explores this relationship privileging a practice perspective through a tentative model, which describes a "bubble-up" of ...

Information

Published in.

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Check for updates, author tags.

• Design methods
• design practice
• Research-article

Funding Sources

• National Science Foundation

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 124 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 124
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 98

View Options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

View options.

View or Download as a PDF file.

View online with eReader .

View this article in Full Text.

Share this Publication link

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

A review of radioactive waste processing and disposal from a life cycle environmental perspective

• Open access
• Published: 18 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Rachael Clayton 1 ,
• Joel Kirk 1 ,
• Anthony Banford 2 &
• Laurence Stamford 1  

The role of nuclear power in a more sustainable, ‘net zero’ energy sector is an important focal point of research. Given the large volume of existing legacy wastes and the future waste arisings that nuclear expansion would entail, attention is needed in the ‘back-end’ of the nuclear fuel cycle: processing (including treatment and conditioning) and disposal of radioactive waste. The range of waste processing techniques already in operation is broad and complex, and many novel technologies are under development. However, whilst prior work only focused on technology development and direct emissions, particularly in post-processing and disposal, a life cycle perspective is underutilised. This review analyses the landscape of life cycle assessment (LCA) within the nuclear sector, focusing on radioactive waste management, decommissioning and disposal. A literature search yielded 225 journal articles plus additional grey literature, yet only eight relevant LCAs were identified. Most studies identified adopted power generation as a functional unit and focused on nuclear power plants currently in operation. The major research gap identified in this review is the lack of holistic life cycle thinking surrounding radioactive waste management caused by poor granularity of published data related to waste treatment, conditioning and disposal, making strategic analysis challenging from the perspective of sustainability. Future LCA work should focus on technologies and processes in the back-end nuclear fuel cycle with considerable granularity to allow system ‘hotspots’ to be identified and strategic research and policy decisions to be taken. Efforts should also be made to incorporate recent developments in radiological impact assessment methodologies such as UCrad.

Graphical abstract

Relevant life cycle assessment literature for the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle and the lack of data on waste processing technologies

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Decommissioning involves the dismantling and demolition of nuclear facilities and removal and/or reduction of radioactive hazards from a nuclear site. A huge range of radioactive materials may be present once a facility has ceased operation, most of which can be categorised as high-, intermediate-, low- and very low-level waste: HLW, ILW, LLW and VLLW, respectively. At the high activity end of the spectrum, HLW incurs significant temperature rises due to its radioactivity, which must be factored into the design of storage and disposal facilities (NDA 2024 ). This may include spent nuclear fuel (SF), depending on national policy. At the other end of the spectrum, for example, LLW has radioactive content not exceeding 4 Giga-becquerels per tonne of alpha activity or 12 Giga-becquerels per tonne of beta/gamma activity. (NDA 2017) including materials like topsoil from the site. The VLLW category includes any waste of low enough activity that it is suitable for disposal through municipal routes. In most countries, the owner or operator of the nuclear facility is responsible for the safe decommissioning of a plant once it ceases to operate, with most operators having to prove before the plant is commissioned that there is a financial plan in place to cover the cost of decommissioning (World Nuclear Association 2021 ).

Once the active/contaminated material is removed from an NPP it usually needs to be processed to immobilise any radionuclides that could migrate during long-term storage and to reduce the volume of material where possible before its final disposal. Many countries generating radioactive waste agree that final disposal should either take the form of a deep geological disposal facility (GDF), ranging from hundreds to thousands of metres below ground level, or a near-surface disposal facility, only tens of metres below ground level. Of the countries planning a GDF, Finland is at the most advanced stage: An operator for its spent nuclear fuel repository at Onkalo has recently applied for an operating license (Posiva 2021 ), and the Finnish government have published a national programme on the management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2022a ). In the USA, there have been ongoing talks about the Yucca Mountain geological disposal facility in Nevada being open for used fuel but with public objection being so high, this is likely not to come to fruition (US EPA 2022). However, it is important to note that a GDF is essential for the safe storage of heat-generating HLW regardless of whether or not reprocessing is conducted.

Different countries’ historical strategies have influenced their preparedness for final disposal, with Finland having not reprocessed spent fuel meaning their waste forms are fewer and the processing options well known (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment 2022b ). In contrast, countries that have reprocessed used fuel, particularly those with multiple generations of nuclear power plants, have reduced the direct fuel disposal burden but are left with more varied radioactive waste forms and larger volumes of ILW/LLW, with differing processing requirements before final disposal. There are proven benefits to both a closed an open fuel cycle from an energy generation standpoint—where, in a closed fuel cycle, there is scope for the recovery of spent fuel for further enrichment or conversion into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel. All waste processing and disposal decisions have potentially significant environmental and economic impacts and so must be considered carefully.

In addition to existing waste, new waste production rates might increase over the coming decades as decarbonisation policies lead to growth in nuclear power deployment. For instance, the IEA’s Net Zero Scenario suggests a tripling of nuclear power capacity by 2030 followed by further increases to 2040 (IEA 2022 ). Although there is much activity within the nuclear sector towards this target, at current pace, it is unlikely that such a capacity increase will be achievable due to the long construction timeframe for NPPs. Nevertheless, whilst waste produced per unit of electricity generated is expected to decrease as older reactor designs are replaced, the overall increase in installed capacity will inevitably lead to new waste production in the coming decades as well as the continual generation of waste during the operational phase of existing reactors. Resultantly, an upsurge in reactor decommissioning is inevitable as new reactor designs such as GEN IV and SMRs replace the current active fleets. With these decommissioning activities come an enormous amount of waste which must be processed and disposed of using processes that are potentially material- and energy-intensive. In this context, and with a growing global emphasis on environmental stewardship and sustainability (OECD 2022 ), it is imperative that the impacts of nuclear decommissioning on the environment are at the forefront of discussions, including when looking to develop and adopt new techniques, all of which will come with varying degrees of environmental and social impact.

In line with the increasing emphasis on environmental sustainability, there is increasing interest in following the waste hierarchy and its associated circular economy principles. This encourages reuse and recycling of waste materials as opposed to disposal and is highly applicable to the nuclear industry (for instance in the decontamination and use/recycling of surface-contaminated metals). Such approaches are in need of examination throughout the back-end of the fuel cycle and may themselves incur sustainability impacts from additional processing steps which will necessitate impact minimisation and the balancing of benefits against detriment in a holistic manner.

Therefore, it is important that relevant studies such as life cycle assessment (LCA) are undertaken to aid decision-making and technology development based on holistic, cradle-to-grave information. This paper will analyse the current landscape of nuclear waste processing technologies and the existing LCA focusing on back-end nuclear processes.

European nuclear waste inventory

As shown in Table  1 , the volume of radioactive waste in storage across the EU as of 2016 is 983,000 m 3 (this volume includes the UK inventory). The volume of radioactive waste disposed of in 3 years from 2013 to 2016 was 167,000 m 3 , and this is expected to increase through to 2030 as more reactors come offline, as shown in Table  2 . It is important to note that these forecasts end in 2030, but further wastes will arise for decades, leading to much higher volumes than those shown in the tables: for instance, future arisings of VLLW—a sub-category of LLW comprised of waste that can be safely disposed of with municipal, commercial, or industrial waste, or can be disposed of in specified landfill—in the UK alone are estimated at 2,750,000 m 3 (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2023 ). The majority of this waste, especially LLW, ILW and HLW, will need to be treated before final disposal to produce a more stable waste form. These large waste volumes across Europe necessitate a focus on the back-end nuclear fuel cycle from an environmental sustainability perspective.

Nuclear fuel cycle back-end

As shown in Fig.  1 , the nuclear fuel cycle can be split into two sections, the front-end and back-end, with the power generation acting as a ‘dividing line’ between the two (Choppin et al., 2013 ). Front-end operations generally include mining, refining, enrichment, fuel fabrication and any other activities leading up to fuel irradiation within the power plant. Back-end processes are considered as any activities that occur post fuel irradiation which include interim storage, reprocessing (when concerning a closed fuel cycle), waste processing, storage and final disposal.

The nuclear fuel cycle (adapted from (IAEA 2011 ))

Initially, radioactive waste is stored in an interim storage facility either to decay in radioactivity or until a final disposal route is available. Some wastes are stored until they naturally decay to limits low enough for disposal via lower activity waste routes.

Waste processing covers all activities undertaken to make waste suitable for disposal. This contains waste treatment steps such as compaction, incineration and other state transformative activities. It also includes conditioning—the consolidation of the treated waste into a solid form ready for disposal, i.e. through encapsulation in cement or via vitrification. Once conditioned, the waste is then further stored awaiting final disposal.

In the case of a closed nuclear cycle, the SF is not processed for disposal; it is reprocessed. After re-enriching or conversion to MOX fuel, it can be reintroduced into Gen III/III + reactors where 25–30% more energy can be released from the original radioactive material (IAEA, 2020). In the case of fast reactors, this increase in energy yield is much higher. If the used fuel is not to be reprocessed or can no longer be reprocessed, it will then be immobilised for disposal.

The waste processing techniques throughout the above stages vary greatly based on wasteform, radioactivity and location. Various techniques are currently in use or under development, as outlined by the examples in Table  3 .

Most countries with radioactive waste are considering deep geological and/or near-surface disposal facilities for the final disposal of waste with different levels of maturity of implementation. Repositories already exist in many countries at ground level such as the low-level waste repository (LLWR) in the UK and below ground level at facilities such as the SFR final repository in Sweden for short-lived radioactive waste (SKB 2021 ). Deep geological disposal is the official policy for the disposal of ILW and HLW in multiple countries (but note that SF is not considered a waste in all countries). The design of each repository is dependent on the geology of the surrounding area, and Finland’s Onkalo repository is the most advanced design, set to be operational in the mid-2020s. Onkalo will be the first repository licensed for the disposal of SF (Vira 2017 ) (Fig.  2 ).

Life cycle assessment framework according to ISO 14040 (adapted from (ISO 2006a ))

Life cycle assessment (LCA) is ‘an environmental management tool that helps to translate life cycle thinking into a quantitative measure of environmental sustainability of products, processes or activities on a life cycle basis’ (Azapagic et al. 2011 ). LCA is useful for finding the overall environmental impact of a product/process and can identify emission ‘hotspots’ so targeted emission reduction strategies can be implemented. LCA can also be used to compare products/process in advance of their application driving reduction in both emission and overall cost. According to the international organisation for standardisation (ISO) standard 14,040/14044, life cycle assessment should follow four steps:

Goal and scope analysis

In this step, it is decided how much of the product/process life cycle will be assessed and what the goal of the study will be, whether that be discovery of overall environmental impact, or investigation of emission ‘hotspots’ (process areas of significant environmental impact). The system boundaries are defined, such as cradle-to-grave, encompassing the whole life cycle or a smaller boundary such as cradle-to-gate, gate-to-grave, etc. If this is more suitable for the process being studied. Functional units (FU) are defined as the unit of assessment, and the limitations and assumptions are described.

Inventory analysis

Inventory analysis describes the material and energy flows within the system, where environmental burdens of the activity under study are identified and quantified. This includes procuring data from reliable sources so that the outputs of the LCA study can be trusted.

Impact assessment (LCIA)

In this stage, the environmental burdens are converted into environmental impacts, classified into themes such as climate change, loss of biodiversity, human toxicity, etc., depending on the goal of the study. Commonly used LCIA methodologies include CML (Guinée and Lindeijer 2002 ), ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al. 2009 ), Eco-indicator 99 (Goedkeep and Spriensma 2001 ) and Impact 2002 + (Jolliet et al. 2003 ). According to a survey (iPoint 2018 ), the majority of practitioners use the ReCiPe methodology. Some nuclear LCA studies have also included radiological impact assessments of nuclear energy generation, though no standardised methodology currently exists.

Interpretation

The final stage involves analysis of the resulting impact categories, including identification of hotspots, sensitivity analysis and selection of the best scenarios/alternatives.

The sources selected were Scopus, Google Scholar and The University of Manchester (UoM) library. Scopus was selected as an internationally-acclaimed source of peer-reviewed publications with an independent Content Selection & Advisory Board comprised of leaders in their respective fields. Google Scholar was selected as a broader search engine to gather more niche literature sources including those not published in scientific journals (grey literature). The University of Manchester library was selected as a supplement to gather local research including reports and PhD theses. A specific date field of 2010–2022 was applied on the Google Scholar and Scopus searches (unavailable with UoM) to encompass the decade prior to the commencement of the EU PREDIS project. Due to the very limited number of relevant articles despite the increased application of LCA in recent years, the authors deemed it extremely unlikely that relevant articles would be found prior to 2010.

The key words selected for each of the source searches included common terms and term groupings such as ‘radioactive waste/nuclear waste’, ‘back-end’, ‘liquid’ and ‘solid’ with optional terms including ‘organic’ also being included. Synonyms which are prevalent within the nuclear industry such as ‘decommissioning’ and ‘end of life’ were also considered. Due to the differing functionality of certain search engines, specific strings of search terms had to be formulated differently in order to yield appropriate results, as indicated in Fig.  3 .

Results from the literature review

The specific search parameters used for this review are shown in Fig.  3 , alongside the number of results yielded. Searches were conducted in February and September 2022.

Following the initial search (see Fig.  3 ), the results were screened for relevance using the following main criteria:

Specific mention of radioactive/nuclear waste processing technologies

Specific mention of liquid and/or solid radioactive/nuclear waste

Any mention of life cycle assessment or life cycle costing

A specific criterion was made for papers of partial relevance which provided useful insight into the fundamental understanding of the review topic or mentioned technology which has not yet been implemented, e.g. those for use on GEN IV reactors (Koltun et al. 2018 ).

The literature which was of no relevance was simply rejected from the review if none of the criteria above were satisfied. This is notable in the search results shown in Fig.  3 , ‘(life AND cycle AND assessment) AND (solid AND radioactive AND waste)’, where 12 search results were produced but none were of relevance to the literature review as they focused on non-nuclear technologies.

Many extensive life cycle assessments of nuclear power exist but were not explicit about their coverage of waste processing, or used data that lacked an explicit description of the waste processing or disposal route being considered (Warner and Heath 2012 ; Nian et al. 2014 , Lenzen, 2008 ).

Of the 225 search results screened after identification through Scopus, Google Scholar and UoM library (see Fig.  2 ), 31.69% were relevant to this study of nuclear LCA. The yield of results was as predicted, with few making it past the screening process due to lack of relevance. The Scopus library of published literature proved to be the most effective and Google Scholar to be the least effective based on the proportion of relevant publications. The University of Manchester digital library yielded only a single relevant paper, which was also found via the other literary sources.

Due to the limited volume of literature available in this field, grey literature was also screened separately. This included reports by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and other government agencies which detailed nuclear ‘back-end’ processes including waste processing and final disposal alongside discussion of guidelines and policy, but due to the lack of inclusion of LCA methodology within these reports, they did not meet the established criteria and, therefore, did not pass the screening process.

For the relevant literature, the process of ‘snowballing’ was also applied by reviewing the literature cited by each study to identify any remaining items of relevance.

Results and discussion

The purpose of this section is to analyse the existing literature regarding both liquid and solid nuclear waste within the scope of LCA. The discussion below is structured to address the key elements of LCA as defined in the ISO 14040–44 standards (ISO 2006a ), namely the overall goal and scope, the system boundaries, functional unit, inventory data sources, impact assessment methods and results.

Overall, it is clear from the literature search process that the majority of nuclear-related LCA studies have used the entire fuel cycle as their system boundary, in which the granularity of back-end processes is minimal; often the entire back-end is represented as simply decommissioning followed by disposal, with little commentary or detail provided within these steps.

Consequently, LCA data related specifically to the back-end of the fuel cycle is limited. This section will review the information available to conduct a gap analysis and ultimately inform the direction of future data gathering.

Table 4 shows the final selection of screened studies applying LCA principles to the nuclear back-end, demonstrating the limited number of studies in the literature.

Alongside this lack of data, some may become outdated as policy changes are made. For example, an in-depth LCA study of the effects of decommissioning the Magnox reactor fleet across the UK (Wallbridge et al. 2013 ) is already out of date due to strategy changes affecting the decommissioning timeline: Though the new strategy appreciates the benefits of deferred decommissioning, ‘it is not appropriate as a blanket strategy for all reactors in the Magnox fleet’ and ‘for some sites this will result in their decommissioning being brought forward’ (Nuclear Decommissioning Authority 2021 ). Such changes to decommissioning timelines have consequences on material usage, background energy mix and disposal route options applied to the processes undertaken, and therefore on the overall environmental impact.

The scarcity of back-end fuel cycle LCA information appears to be caused by two predominant drivers: firstly, much prior LCA work in the energy sector has focused on comparison to other energy generation techniques, leading to a focus on the generation process and oversimplification of the disposal process where waste processing is missed, e.g. (Gagnon et al. 2002 ; Santoyo-Castelazo et al. 2011 ; Siddiqui and Dincer 2017 ), particularly affecting nuclear power due to the complexity and variety of its waste processing requirements. Secondly, there is often a lack of clarity over the exact processes associated with power plant end-of-life and used fuel processing, in some cases accentuated by a lack of back-end fuel cycle policies in the country under assessment (Lee et al. 2000 ; Turconi et al. 2013 ).

Another possible reason for the lack of attention paid to the back-end is the apparent dominance of front-end activities in environmental impacts: When the entire nuclear life cycle is considered, existing studies suggest that the front-end processes (mining, separating and purifying) account for > 70% of the overall environmental footprint, in part because most of those processes have remained similar since their development in the 1950s–1960s (Poinssot et al. 2016 ). Similar conclusions, i.e. that the front-end is the major contributor to the emissions associated with nuclear power generation, have been reached by other LCAs (Lenzen 2008 ; Warner and Heath 2012 ) Whilst this front-end dominance may be the case, improved granularity of data on the back-end processes would help to verify this claim and may well offer help to identify opportunities to minimise waste and reduce overall environmental impacts. This uncertainty is further accentuated by the huge variation in GHG emission factors in nuclear LCA studies ‘up to one order of magnitude’, although this is largely attributable to whether a study included uranium enrichment in the life cycle, and to a lesser extent the methodology and technological approaches considered (Turconi et al. 2013 ).

The limited research in this area suggests that solid wastes may be responsible for a greater environmental impact than liquid wastes due to the latter’s lesser volumes as can be seen in the results presented by Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ) where liquid wastes (sludges and effluent) produced in the decommissioning of an NPP made up 6 waste packages whereas the solid contaminated waste required > 6970 packages. (In this study, ‘packages’ were simplified for LLW to 2.2 t steel and a ratio of 2:1 of waste to grout, and for ILW 4.2 t steel and a ratio of 1:1 of waste to grout. These values were averages across multiple waste package types.) The smaller number of packages for liquid waste is due to liquid effluents predominantly being treated, yielding further solid waste, and discharged whilst solids are more likely to be stored during the operational phase. It is typical for solid wastes to be concrete, steel and other contaminated materials from decommissioning activities which are comparatively more massive. However, the greater prevalence of solid waste generation within decommissioning activities means that, over the life of a plant, their production rates vary more than those of liquids, which typically come from analysis and maintenance. These differences should be taken into consideration when considering the granularity of LCA modelling.

Goal definitions

The goals of each LCA study identified in this review (Table  4 ) were either related to the whole life cycle of NPPs, back-end waste processing technologies or reactor site decommissioning. From all the papers reviewed, most gave a clear goal and scope outline within the first few subsections whilst one did not (Pomponi and Hart 2021 ) (though it could be ascertained through context) whilst others compared pre-existing LCA studies, and therefore, the goal and scope for each were not described (Fthenakis and Kim 2007 ). The paper by (Guidi et al. 2010 ) is the only LCA study whose goal does not consider large-scale NPP processes but instead focuses on a specific waste form’s treatment and aims to quantify the impacts of decontaminating a surface using a novel technology in comparison with an existing approach.

System boundaries

System boundaries were well defined in all papers. The study by Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ) offers the most comprehensive look at applicable system boundaries for this review. It encompassed the stages of decommissioning—including the waste arising from decommissioning activities, temporary storage and final disposal of nuclear waste.

Pomponi and Hart ( 2021 ) acknowledge the omission of decommissioning activities in existing literature prior to their assessment of a European PWR, a notable case study being Ding et al. ( 2017 ) with the decommissioning phase being absent in their assessment of energy infrastructure in China, but still encompasing back-end processes within the system boundaries.

Fthenakis and Kim ( 2007 ) also mentions the ‘outdated information’ within LCA databases for waste processing activities and decommissioning stages, leading to a lack of any specific analysis within their assessment. Godsey (2019) also references the lack of back-end data available, attempting to draw additional information in their assessment of SMRs in the US nuclear fuel cycle from other sites, specifically the VVER facility in Lubin, Germany, noting the limitations of this comparison. The authors note that, of all papers in this review, only one (Guidi et al. 2010 ) focused on the environmental impacts of a specific waste treatment method: the treatment of contaminated surfaces through the use of strippable coatings and vacuum technology.

There is an inherent uncertainty in developing accurate models related to decommissioning as a result of the potentially large timescales involved with resultant differing energy mixes and disposal routes, as well as the policy changes that may arise; this is acknowledged by Paulillo et al. ( 2021 ) and Koltun et al. ( 2018 ) within their assessments. Paulillo et al. do specifically reference the waste generated through reprocessing scenarios (i.e. via THORP), but a granular assessment of waste management and plant decommissioning is outside of its scope. This is also true of Lee et al. ( 2000 ) which focus more so on spent nuclear fuel in the case of the Korean once-through cycle.

There is a general focus on the system boundaries being the whole reactor site including during the operational/power generation period without a great deal of consideration for the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. However, in recent years, there has been an increase in the consideration of decommissioning projects, i.e. the Magnox fleet in the UK (Wallbridge et al. 2013 ) which include the disposal of various types of radioactive wastes. With further expansion of the system boundaries to include waste processing and disposal methods, insight could be gained as to the impacts of these processes as waste volumes and therefore processing requirments will increase.

Functional units

A functional unit (FU) is used as a ‘quantified description of the function of a product [or system] that serves as the reference basis for all calculations regarding impact assessment’ (Arzoumanidis et al. 2020 ). Of the limited number of LCA studies on nuclear energy generation/decommissioning, the majority use the entire life cycle of a NPP, or a unit of electricity generated within this life cycle. For instance, Koltun et al. ( 2018 ) selected 1 MWhe of generation as the FU when assessing the potential impacts of GEN IV plants, and similarly, (Lee et al. 2000 ) chose a FU of 1 GWh electricity delivered to consumers. Only one paper considers specifically a waste treatment process (Guidi et al. 2010 ).

In Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ), the functional unit was the ‘decommissioning of one Magnox power plant’. This is unique among the identified papers and aligns with the fact that this was the only paper focused on the decommissioning of a single NPP. Even in this case, the global warming potential was also expressed per kWh generated in order to contextualise against other studies such as those above.

Life cycle inventory (LCI) data sources

Almost all papers provided detail on their data sources, with data on the foreground system primarily arising directly from power plant operators or from material published by plant operators. Background data were typically sourced from the database Ecoinvent. However, some papers provided less detail, such as Koltun et al. ( 2018 ) which only specifies the source of their background data as ‘Australian conditions’.

The Ecoinvent database, upon which these studies rely, has little data directly related to back-end processes and most is Swiss-centric due to the database’s origins in Zurich, Switzerland. For example, the data on the environmental impacts of the construction of a geological disposal facility for nuclear waste are based on a Swiss design; therefore, if it is used in an LCA study, it must be edited to reflect other countries’ GDF designs, as no two are the same due to differences in host rock, depth, engineering approaches, etc. In some cases, as seen in Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ), the disposal facility model is simplified and condensed to contain only its steel and concrete components, reducing the likelihood of error but simultaneously risking an underestimation of the true impacts.

There may also be data specificity and age implications from the use of Ecoinvent by the majority of LCA practitioners. For example, most data for countries other than Switzerland are modified datasets based on original Swiss data as opposed to being built from the ground up. The problem of data being outdated is especially prominent in nuclear processes: for instance, the data on electricity generation from boiling water reactors originate from the period 1990–2015; similarly, the process of constructing a nuclear fuel factory has not been updated since 2000, and the data for the construction of a nuclear waste repository have not been updated since 2002 (Ecoinvent 2023 ). This does not mean that Ecoinvent should be avoided—on the contrary, it has the most complete datasets available—but it does highlight the lack of alternative nuclear sector datasets for LCA practitioners due to insufficient work in this area. Therefore, these existing datasets must be carefully assessed prior to use to ensure their validity in a modern model. Ecoinvent is transparent and provides comprehensive documentation on the source of data, and this should be evaluated to ensure that inappropriate data and assumptions are not implicit across multiple LCA models throughout the literature.

Software and impact assessment methodologies

Of the LCA studies reviewed only four discussed their impact assessment methodology: CML2001 (Wallbridge et al. 2013 ), Eco-indicator 99 (Guidi et al. 2010 ), ReCiPe (Godsey 2019 ) and UCrad (Paulillo et al. 2021 ). Other literature identified by this review, which did not pass the screening process due to a lack of LCA within the nuclear context, also applied the CML (Guinée and Lindeijer 2002 ) and ReCiPe (Goedkoop et al. 2009 ) methodologies most frequently. The study conducted by (Godsey 2019 ) addressing the US nuclear fuel cycle provides significant discussion and justification around their choice to use the older ReCiPe 2008 method as opposed to ReCiPe 2016 due to validity uncertainties in their software.

Whilst ISO 14040 and 14,044 do not require justification of the selection of an impact assessment methodology, they do specify that it should be clearly reported, and that the choice of metrics should align with the goal and scope of the study (ISO 2006a , ISO 2006b ). Consequently, of the studies reviewed here, the only ones compliant with the ISO are Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ), Godsey ( 2019 ), Guidi et al. ( 2010 ) and Paulillo et al. ( 2020 ).

So far, radiological impacts have only been considered in nuclear LCA studies to a relatively basic standard due to the simplicity of existing LCA impact assessment models for radiological discharges. Recently, a paper was published by Paulillo et al. ( 2020 ) comparing two methodologies for quantifying ionising radiation impacts: UCrad and critical group methodology (CGM). These were compared to a pre-existing approach used in LCIA called Human Health Damage (HHD) (Frischknecht et al. 2000 ) which has been described as ‘recommended but in need of some improvements’ (Hauschild et al. 2013 ). Other radiological impact methodologies proposed exclusively for LCA applications have been reviewed but were not considered sufficiently comprehensive (Paulillo et al. 2020 ). The outcome of the review was that ‘characterisation factors from the CGM methodology are strongly affected by radioactive decay at low half-life and by dilution at large distances. Conversely, UCrad factors are not affected by dilution and are affected less than CGM by radioactive decay’. Therefore, UCrad is more appropriate than CGM for LCA as it is consistent with the general approach used in LCIA. There is a prescribed necessity for the further exploration of radiological assessment methodologies which could be applied to nuclear-related LCA, both back-end and otherwise. For instance, approaches included in the most common life cycle impact assessment methodologies are based on absorbed dose or exposure relative to reference isotopes such as Co-60 (Huijbregts et al. 2016 ) and U-235 (European Platform on LCA 2022 ), whilst non-LCA studies have considered other metrics such as collective dose (person-Sieverts) over a million years and Tier 1 ERICA score (Abrahamsen-Mills et al. 2021 ).

Although not an LCA study, Poinssot et al. ( 2016 ) discussed the opportunities available to decrease the environmental footprint of nuclear energy generation using similar indicators such as GHG emissions, atmospheric pollution (a quantification of the combined mass of SOx and NOx released per GW electrical power), land use, water consumption/withdrawal and the production of technological waste. Similarly, Sheldon et al. ( 2015 ) described the impact of the long-term storage of radioactive waste and impact of a catastrophic event which they have defined as the probability of total failure multiplied by the replacement energy costs.

The choice of impact assessment methodology can have a great influence on the reported impacts. As the ISO standard does not provide recommendations on the method which should be used, many organisations and governmental bodies have compared and evaluated different methodologies and provide their own recommendations for the best available approach as outlined by (Rosenbaum et al. 2018 ). The European Commission recommends the use of ILCD (EC-JRC 2011 ) and Environmental Footprint (EF) (European Commission 2021 ), the US Government recommends TRACI, though it has noted in best practice guidance that this LCIA methodology has not been updated since 2021 and, therefore, has ‘recommended to utilize the IPCC AR6 GWP characterization factors for translation of GHG emissions to Global Warming Potential impacts as a replacement for the factors in TRACI’ (U.S. DOE 2022 ). There does not exist a recommended LCIA methodology within the UK or wider nuclear industry. LCA of nuclear processes might benefit from the adoption of an LCIA methodology to assist in the comparison of results as it would allow assessments from multiple sources to be comparable between each other, aiding in decision-making at both an application level and policy making level.

LCA results

Due to the variety of system boundaries within the LCAs screened, the direct comparison of their results is difficult, although many share similar conclusions.

Firstly, the mining/milling of virgin resources such as uranium from open-pit mines appears to be a prevailing factor in several studies. For instance, when assessing the viability of SMRs, Godsey ( 2019 ) found that the LCA had a strong dependence on the boundary conditions applied and when incorporating the front-end, the mining practices utilised were an area of particular sensitivity, narrowed down to the source of the energy used for these processes. This resulted in recommendations that were also reflected in an LCA conducted by (Lee et al. 2000 ), who recommend that mining practices should be considered due to their dominant impacts.

Parallel to the above, (Fthenakis and Kim 2007 ) found that in their LCA based on the nuclear fuel cycle in the USA, front-end practices were also dominant citing the diffusion enrichment of nuclear fuel as the most prominent factor contributing ~ 50% of total GWP in their baseline scenario with limited impacts from sensitivity analysis.

The recycling of spent nuclear fuel to prevent the mining of virgin material was discussed in an LCA by Paulillo et al. ( 2021 ) which looked at reprocessing scenarios in the UK and argued that it was essential for policy makers to consider the reimplementation of reprocessing of SF to reduce environmental impacts.

When directly considering the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle, Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ) highlighted the impacts of the decommissioning of the Trawsfynydd site showcasing the dominance of the deconstruction, disposal and temporary storage—mirrored by Guidi et al. ( 2010 )—which were notable hotspots. The conclusion of the LCA, based on the identification of the model’s sensitivity to energy mix, was to suggest that a period of quiescence could be considered to allow for the national grid to decarbonise. As described in Table  4 , all other studies screened also considered varying aspects of the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle but with limited data resolution, i.e. taking a top level view of back-end processes as opposed to individual waste processing/disposal pathways. For example, within their LCA of the entire SMR life cycle, Godsey ( 2019 ) simplified ‘waste management’ to comprise only the steel and cement required for the conditioning of waste rather than individual waste processing pathways for different waste types and their associated energy requirements. This lack of granularity means that accurate assessment of the impacts/comparison between studies of individual back-end processes is not possible.

Waste processing options

As outlined in the methods section, most nuclear-related LCA studies and reviews were not explicit about the waste treatment/conditioning processes considered within their studies. Moreover, existing reviews of LCA in the nuclear sector (Warner and Heath 2012 ; Nian et al. 2014 ; Lenzen 2008 ) often do not include sections on waste processing.

One major finding of this review is that, in the studies identified, only two studies explicitly mentioned specific processing options as described in Table  3 . Firstly, Guidi et al. ( 2010 ) considered the decontamination of a surface through the use of a peelable gel, concluding that the conditioning, storage and disposal of the waste were the most dominant impacts of the decontamination process. Secondly, Wallbridge et al. ( 2013 ) explicitly described basic decontamination methods: washing with water, detergents or alcohol and ‘more aggressive decontamination’ such as blasting or treatment with chemicals are present within the scope of the LCA. However, in the LCA model produced by that study, these processes were simplified, for instance through the inclusion of a generic ‘soap’ dataset as a substitute for chemical surfactants and the exclusion of mechanical decontamination processes such as shot blasting.

The overall lack of data resolution regarding waste processing options, however, should be addressed by future studies. As more NPPs come offline and the total volume of waste for Europe alone is estimated to be in the region of 3,600,000 m 3 (European Commission 2019 ) by 2030, there should be a clear focus on ascertaining the impacts of not just a blanket policy of geological disposal, but also waste processing and pre-disposal options both developed and developing. Without such analyses, it is not possible for future decision-making in the policy, operations and R&D realms to enhance further the environmental sustainability of waste disposal and processing. Moreover, without greater attention to these life cycle stages in future LCAs, the current understanding of front-end dominance in the overall nuclear power life cycle (outlined in Sect. ‘ LCA results ’) is highly uncertain, which may itself influence policy and operational decisions.

In the absence of other specific waste processing information, an assumption of grouting in steel boxes at low loadings could serve as a conservative default approach, as in the case of Godsey ( 2019 ).

Papers of partial relevance

An LCA by Koltun et al. ( 2018 ) is partially relevant to this review due to its focus on theoretical Gen IV High-Temperature Gas Reactors (HGTR). It included front-end construction and materials, use, back-end and decommissioning and waste disposal as boundary conditions, with a functional unit of 1 MWh electricity generated, which is typical of most LCAs surrounding the nuclear fuel cycle. In line with other studies, commissioning and decommissioning cause most of the global warming potential (GWP) but the construction of waste repositories is also a significant contributor. Basic solid materials are included, but no specific waste disposal or pre-disposal processes are detailed.

The challenge of managing radioactive waste is large and complex, requiring the processing of millions of cubic metres of waste globally over the coming decades. The waste types are varied, with numerous technologies being developed to aid in their processing, and the environmental impacts of these must not be overlooked. Consequently, this paper has systematically reviewed the literature for studies addressing the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle from a life cycle assessment perspective.

Overall, this literature review has revealed a lack of LCA studies focused on the back-end of the nuclear fuel cycle. Of the limited nuclear-related studies discovered, the focus has predominantly been the full nuclear life cycle or power generation. Though decommissioning is covered in some of the studies reviewed, as it is not the sole focus, granularity of data is insufficient, and comparisons are difficult to draw. For example, of the 72 relevant papers identified, only two (Wallbridge et al. 2013 ) (Guidi et al. 2010 ) are focused on applying LCA to decommissioning processes. This lack of granularity means that there is limited information as to which decommissioning activities and waste processing methods are more negatively impacting the environment than others, or how they might be improved. Addressing these gaps in future LCA studies will allow the nuclear sector to drive targeted, strategic innovation towards more sustainable back-end processes.

Three key findings from this review give rise to three recommendations, as follows. Firstly, far more activity is needed in future to apply LCA to decommissioning and back-end processes, with goals, functional units and system boundaries that are decommissioning-specific: This is important for both the optimisation of legacy waste processing, which is of a significant volume, and for the development of more comprehensive LCAs of the full nuclear fuel cycle for current and future reactor designs. These back-end processes should be delineated as much as possible during data collection and analysis to improve granularity, enabling the identification of specific hotspots and the generation of more precise, useful findings.

Secondly, this review has established that, at the time of writing, the published literature includes few attempts to investigate the environmental impacts of novel treatment/conditioning technologies and those in development using LCA methods, with most prior work focusing on efficiencies and effectiveness of application into the current fuel cycle. As a result, environmental considerations are only being incorporated into the development of new technologies via the narrower perspective of site licensing and local regulation rather than via a more holistic, life cycle perspective. This is likely hindering the overall environmental sustainability of the sector and could be rectified by applying early-stage or anticipatory LCA techniques to guide technology development.

Thirdly, although there is evidence that a greater proportion of impacts during decommissioning may be associated with solid waste types compared to liquid, LCA practitioners should also consider the impacts associated with liquid waste processing and disposal. The vast array of technologies available has made it difficult to conduct meaningful LCA to date. With further attempts to collect data on specific waste processing technologies, LCA could be used to provide valuable insight into the most environmentally favourable options within decision-making processes.

In conclusion, future research should be focused on the collection of more LCA data surrounding back-end nuclear processes. This requires the collection of mass and energy balance information associated with existing and candidate waste processing technologies, enabling the completion of LCA models which can then, in turn, feed into broader LCAs of whole back-end processes as well as full fuel cycle models. Data should be as granular as possible and focus on both solid and liquid waste types. Current state-of-the-art impact assessment methodologies should be adopted to provide a broad range of impacts, and new radiological impact methodologies such as UCrad should be explored further. This will allow LCA practitioners the opportunity to conduct meaningful comparisons between different waste processing/decommissioning scenarios through identification of hotspots. This will ultimately help inform the research agenda of those investigating novel technologies and will aid in the integration of LCA within the nuclear sector.

Data availability

Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.

Abbreviations

Critical group methodology

Functional unit

Geological disposal facility

4Th generation nuclear power plant

Greenhouse gas

Human health damage

High-level waste

International atomic energy agency

Intermediate-level waste

Life cycle assessment

Life cycle costing

Life cycle impact assessment

Low-level waste

Low-level waste repository

Nuclear power plant

Radioactive waste

Small modular reactor

Very low-level waste

Abdel Rahman RO, Ibrahium HA, Hung Y-T (2011) Liquid radioactive wastes treatment: a review. Water 3:551–565

Article   Google Scholar  

Abrahamsen-Mills L, Wareing A, Fowler L, Jarvis R, Norris S, Banford A (2021) Development of a multi criteria decision analysis framework for the assessment of integrated waste management options for irradiated graphite. Nucl Eng Technol 53:1224–1235

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Allensworth JR, Simpson MF, Yim MS, Phongikaroon S (2013) Investigation of fission product transport into zeolite-a for pyroprocessing waste minimization. Nucl Technol 181:337–348

Arzoumanidis I, D’Eusanio M, Raggi A, Petti L (2020) Functional unit definition criteria in life cycle assessment and social life cycle assessment: a discussion. Perspectives on social LCA. Springer International Publishing, New York

Book   Google Scholar  

Azapagic A, Clift R, Perdan S, Dawsonera Perdan S, Clift R (2011) Sustainable development in practice : case studies for engineers and scientists. John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Hoboken

Google Scholar  

Bart F, Cau-Di-coumes CL, Frizon F, Lorente S (2013) Cement-based materials for nuclear waste storage. Springer, New York

Benedict RW, Solbrig C, Westphal B, Johnson TA, Li SX, Marsden K, Goff KM (2007) Pyroprocessing progress at Idaho national laboratory. In: GLOBAL 2007: advanced nuclear fuel cycles and systems 741–747

Bourg S, Poinssot C, Geist A, Cassayre L, Rhodes C, Ekberg C (2012) Advanced reprocessing developments in Europe status on European projects ACSEPT and ACTINET-I3. Procedia Chem 7:166–171

Calloway TB, Martino CJ, Jantzen CM, Wilmarth WR, Stone ME, Pierce RA, Josephs JE, Barnes CD, Daniel WE, Eibling RE, Choi AS, White TL, Crowley DA, Baich MA, Johnson JD, Vijayaraghavan K, Nikolov A, Wasan DT (2003) Radioactive waste evaporation: current methodologies employed for the development, design and operation of waste evaporators at the Savannah river site and Hanford waste treatment plant. In: 9th ASME international conference on radioactive waste management and environmental remediation Volumes 1, 2, and 3, 2003-01-01 2003. ASMEDC

Choppin GR, Rydberg J, Liljenzin J, Ekberg, C (2013) Radiochemistry & Nuclear Chemistry, 4th edition, Academic Press, Amsterdam.

Deckers J (2011) Incineration and plasma processes and technology for treatment and conditioning of radioactive waste. Handbook of advanced radioactive waste conditioning technologies. Elsevier, Amsterdam

Ding N, Liu J, Yang J, Yang D (2017) Comparative life cycle assessment of regional electricity supplies in China. Resour Conserv Recycl 119:47–59

U.S. DOE (2022) Best practices for life cycle assessment (LCA) of direct air capture with storage (DACS). In: U.S. Department of energy, O. O. F. E. A. C. M. (ed.)

Drecier M (1995) Externality of energy nuclear energy, vol. 5, European commission (1995). Externality of energy nuclear energy, 5

EC-JRC (2011) International reference life cycle data system (ILCD) handbook – General guide for life cycle assessment: provisions and action steps, Publications Office.

ECOINVENT (2023) Ecoinvent v3.9.1. Switzerland

EDF (2016) Hinkley Point C, Building Britain's Low-carbon Future. EDF

European Commission (2019) Inventory of radioactive waste and spent fuel present in the community’s territory and the future prospects. Report from the commission to the council and the european parliament, Brussels

European Commission (2021) Environmental Footprints methods [Online]. Available: https://green-business.ec.europa.eu/environmental-footprint-methods_en#related-documents . Accessed 2024

European Platform On LCA (2022) Environmental footprint reference packages [Online]. Directorate-general for communication. Available: https://eplca.jrc.ec.europa.eu/LCDN/developerEF.xhtml . Accessed Aug 2023

Frischknecht R, Braunschweig A, Hofstetter P, Suter P (2000) Human health damages due to ionising radiation in life cycle impact assessment. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:159–189

Fthenakis VM, Kim HC (2007) Greenhouse-gas emissions from solar electric- and nuclear power: a life-cycle study. Energy Policy 35:2549–2557

Gagnon L, Bélanger C, Uchiyama Y (2002) Life-cycle assessment of electricity generation options: the status of research in year 2001. Energy Policy 30:1267–1278

Garamszeghy M (2011) Compaction processes and technology for treatment and conditioning of radioactive waste. Handbook of advanced radioactive waste conditioning technologies. Elsevier, New York

HW Godbee (1973) Use of evaporation for the treatment of liquids in the nuclear industry. Oak Ridge National Laboratory

GODSEY, K. (2019) Life cycle assessment of small modular reactors using us nuclear fuel cycle. Clemson University, Masters

Goedkeep M, Spriensma R (2001) The eco-indicator 99: a damage oriented method for life cycle impact assessment. Third Edition ed

Goedkoop M, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Schryver AD, Struijs J, Van Zelm R (2009) A life cycle impact assessment method which comprises harmonized category indicators at the midpoint and the endpoint level. The Hague, Ministry of VROM. ReCiPe

Guidi G, Cumo F, de Santoli L (2010) LCA of strippable coatings and of steam vacuum technology used for nuclear plants decontamination. Clean Technol Environ Policy 12:283–289

Guinée JB, Lindeijer E (2002) Handbook on life cycle assessment: operational guide to the ISO standards. Springer Science & Business Media, Berlin

Hauschild MZ, Goedkoop M, Guinée J, Heijungs R, Huijbregts M, Jolliet O, Margni M, de Schryver A, Humbert S, Laurent A (2013) Identifying best existing practice for characterization modeling in life cycle impact assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:683–697

Heath P (2017) Hot isostatic pressing can substantially reduce the volume of nuclear waste. Research Features

Hirabayashi T, Kameo Y, Myodo M (2000) Application of a laser to decontamination and decommissioning of nuclear facilities at JAERI, SPIE

Huijbregts MAJ, Steinmann ZJN, Elshout PMF, Stam G, Verones F, Vieira MDM, Hollander A, Zijp M, Van Zelm R (2016) ReCiPe 2016: a harmonized life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and the endpoint level – Report 1: characterization. Bilthoven, The Netherlands: Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

IAEA (1992) Design and operation of radioactive waste incineration facilities. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

IAEA (1993) Bituminization processes to condition radioactive wastes. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

IAEA (2002) Application of Ion exchange processes for the treatment of radioactive waste and management of spent ion exchangers. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

IAEA (2004) Application of membrane technologies for liquid radioactive waste processing. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna

IAEA (2011) The nuclear fuel cycle

IAEA (2021) Treatment and conditioning of nuclear waste [Online]. UK: IAEA

IEA (2022) Nuclear - fuels and technology [Online]. Available: https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/nuclear

IPOINT (2018) Life cycle impact assessment – which are the LCIA indicator sets most widely used by practitioners? [Online]. iPoint-systems gmbh Ludwig-Erhard-Str. 58 72760 Reutlingen Germany: iPoint-systems gmbh. Accessed Apr 2022 2022

ISO 2006a. ISO 14040:2006 Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Principles and framework. In: ISO (ed.) 2 ed

ISO (2006b) ISO 14044:2006. Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - requirements and guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International organisation for standardisation

Jolliet O, Margni M, Charles R, Humbert S, Payet J, Rebitzer G, Rosenbaum R (2003) IMPACT 2002+: a new life cycle impact assessment methodology. Int J Life Cycle Assess 8:324–330

KGM (2024) Eora database [Online]. Available: https://www.worldmrio.com/ . Accessed Jul 2024

Kim K, Kim K, Choi M, Son SH, Han JH (2012) Treatment of ion exchange resins used in nuclear power plants by super- and sub-critical water oxidation – a road to commercial plant from bench-scale facility. Chem Eng J 189–190:213–221

Kim JH, Seo EA, Chung KDG, CW, (2021) Utilization of recycled cement powder as a solidifying agent for radioactive waste immobilization. Constr Build Mater 289:123126

Koltun P, Tsykalo A, Novozhilov V (2018) Life cycle assessment of the new generation GT-MHR nuclear power plant. Energies 11:3452

Kriven WM (2021) Geopolymers and geopolymer-derived composites. In: Pomeroy M (ed) Encyclopedia of materials: technical ceramics and glasses. Elsevier, Oxford

Lee YE, Lee KJ, Lee BW (2000) Environmental assessment of nuclear power generation in Korea. Prog Nucl Energy 37:113–118

Lenzen M (2008) Life cycle energy and greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy: a review. Energy Convers Manag 49:2178–2199

Lewin RG, Harrison MT (2015) 15 - International developments in electrorefining technologies for pyrochemical processing of spent nuclear fuels. In: Taylor R (ed) Reprocessing and recycling of spent nuclear fuel. Oxford Woodhead Publishing, Sawston

LTD., KAP (2024) Eora database [Online]. Available: https://www.worldmrio.com/

Matsuda M, Nishi T, Tamada S, Kikuchi M, Kato H (1994) Pelletizing method for radioactive waste and solidification method for radioactive waste pellet

Ministry Of Economic Affairs And Employment (2022a) Management of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste in finland. Helsinki: vnjulkaisumyynti.f

Ministry Of Economic Affairs And Employment (2022b) Spent nuclear fuel will be disposed of in Finland [Online]. Helsinki, Finland. Available: https://tem.fi/en/spent-nuclear-fuel

Nian V, Chou SK, Su B, Bauly J (2014) Life cycle analysis on carbon emissions from power generation – the nuclear energy example. Appl Energy 118:68–82

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. 2021. Timing of the magnox reactor decommissioning strategy [Online]. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/case-studies/timing-of-the-magnox-reactor-decommissioning-strategy . Accessed Dec 2022

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2023) UK radioactive waste inventory 2022 [Online]. Nuclear decommissioning authority. Available: https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/the-2022-inventory/2022-uk-data/ . Accessed Oct 2023

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (2024) About Radioactive Waste [Online]. Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. Available: https://ukinventory.nda.gov.uk/about-radioactive-waste/what-is-radioactivity/what-are-the-main-wastecategories/ . Accessed May 2024.

OECD (2022) Green growth and sustainable development [Online]. Available: https://www.oecd.org/greengrowth/ . Accessed Nov 2022

Ojovan MI, Lee WE (2005) Chapter 16 - immobilisation of radioactive wastes in Bitumen. In: Ojovan MI, Lee WE (eds) An introduction to nuclear waste immobilisation. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Oxford

Paulillo A, Clift R, Dodds JM, Milliken A, Lettieri PSJ, P, (2020) Radiological impacts in life cycle assessment. Part I: General framework and two practical methodologies. Sci Total Environ 708:135179

Paulillo A, Dodds JM, Palethorpe SJ, Lettieri P (2021) Reprocessing vs direct disposal of used nuclear fuels: The environmental impacts of future scenarios for the UK. Sustain Mater Technol 28:e00278

CAS   Google Scholar  

Poinssot C, Bourg S, Boullis B (2016) Improving the nuclear energy sustainability by decreasing its environmental footprint. Guidelines from life cycle assessment simulations. Prog Nucl Energy 92:234–241

Pomponi F, Hart J (2021) The greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear energy – life cycle assessment of a European pressurised reactor. Appl Energy 290:116743

Posiva 2021. Operating license application

Reeb C, Pierlot C, Davy C, Lambertin D (2021) Incorporation of organic liquids into geopolymer materials - a review of processing, properties and applications. Ceram Int 47(6):7369–7385

Rosenbaum RK, Hauschild MZ, Boulay A-M, Fantke P, Laurent A, Núñez M, Vieira M (2018) Life cycle impact assessment. In: Hauschild MZ, Olsen SI, Rosenbaum RK (eds) Life cycle assessment theory and practice gewerbestrasse. Springer, Cham

Santoyo-Castelazo E, Gujba H, Azapagic A (2011) Life cycle assessment of electricity generation in Mexico. Energy 36:1488–1499

Sheldon S, Hadian S, Zik O (2015) Beyond carbon: quantifying environmental externalities as energy for hydroelectric and nuclear power. Energy 84:36–44

Siddiqui O, Dincer I (2017) Comparative assessment of the environmental impacts of nuclear, wind and hydro-electric power plants in Ontario: a life cycle assessment. J Clean Prod 164:848–860

Simapro (2024) Simapro databases [Online]. Available: https://support.simapro.com/s/article/Which-databases-are-included-in-SimaPro . Accessed July 2024

SKB (2021) The final repository SFR [Online]. Available: https://www.skb.com/our-operations/sfr/ . Accessed 21Apr 2021

Thorpe CL, Neeway JJ, Pearce CI, Hand RJ, Fisher AJ, Walling SA, Hyatt NC, Kruger AA, Schweiger M, Kosson DS, Arendt CL, Marcial J, Corkhill CL (2021) Forty years of durability assessment of nuclear waste glass by standard methods. Npj Mater Degrad 5(1):61

Turconi R, Boldrin A, Astrup T (2013) Life cycle assessment (LCA) of electricity generation technologies: overview, comparability and limitations. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 28:555–565

VGB Powertech EV (2012) Waste disposal for nuclear power plants. VGB PowerTech e.V, Germany

Vira J (2017) Geological repository for high-level nuclear waste becoming reality in Finland. In: Geological repository systems for safe disposal of spent nuclear fuels and radioactive waste

Wallbridge S, Banford A, Azapagic A (2013) Life cycle environmental impacts of decommissioning Magnox nuclear power plants in the UK. Int J Life Cycle Assess 18:990–1008

Walling SA, Kauffmann MN, Gardner LJ, Bailey DJ, Stennett MC, Corkhill CL, Hyatt NC (2021) Characterisation and disposability assessment of multi-waste stream in-container vitrified products for higher activity radioactive waste. J Hazard Mater 401:123764

Warner ES, Heath GA (2012) Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of nuclear electricity generation. J Ind Ecol 16:S73–S92

WILLE, H. 1987. System decontamination with cord and decontamination for unrestricted release. Nuclear Power Performance and Safety. Vienna: IAEA

World Nuclear Association (2021) Decommissioning nuclear facilities [Online]. Accessed April 2022 2022

Yamamoto S, Takahashi H, Taniguchi H, Kawashima A, Takahashi H, Kikura H (2020) Fundamental study on decontamination method using shot blasting and barrel polishing for radioactive metal waste. In: 2020 international conference on nuclear engineering collocated with the ASME 2020 power conference, V001T04A014

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding that enabled this work, received from the EU Horizon 2020 programme and Euratom as part of the PREDIS project (‘Pre-disposal management of radioactive waste’, Euratom research and training programme grant agreement No. 945098).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Chemical Engineering, Sustainable Industrial Systems, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

Rachael Clayton, Joel Kirk & Laurence Stamford

National Nuclear Laboratory, Warrington, UK

Anthony Banford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Rachael Clayton helped in conceptualisation, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, visualisation and validation. Joel Kirk helped in conceptualisation, methodology, software, formal analysis, investigation, writing—original draft, visualisation and validation. Anthony Banford helped in conceptualisation, methodology, validation, data curation, writing—review & editing, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition. Laurence Stamford helped in conceptualisation, methodology, validation, data curation, writing—review & editing, supervision, project administration and funding acquisition.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Laurence Stamford .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Clayton, R., Kirk, J., Banford, A. et al. A review of radioactive waste processing and disposal from a life cycle environmental perspective. Clean Techn Environ Policy (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02998-6

Download citation

Received : 09 May 2024

Accepted : 06 September 2024

Published : 18 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10098-024-02998-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nuclear energy
• Nuclear power
• Decommissioning
• Sustainable engineering
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research